Dixiecrats Became Republicans??? A Lie.

[Bfgrn]

You are entitled to be silly.

Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.

No wrath just straight out point another's lack of ability and content. I pos rep everybody at one time or another, from far lefty to far righty. That includes bigrebnc as a matter of fact, once.

So if I rep you when ur right, I can neg rep you when ur are being deliberately ignorant.

Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.

"It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."

The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.

So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.

Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"

Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?

Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, witch hunts are witch hunts. You live in so dense a bubble you forget the history of the time. You also fail to recognize being a communist then in America is kinda like being a right winger today. I'll let you see if you can figure out why. A bit of the history is below and the Verona papers are hardly a source of accurate info. You have to place your bed on the floor, that way the bogeyman will have no place to hide. Drop this odd worship of Coulter, she's a paid paranoid nutcase. I hoping she gets married and has ten kids, but so cranky a person may never really live life. Cheer up, life will be the same when we are all dust.

https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/venona3.html

Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?

From first link: "The messages [deleted] furnishes the Bureau are, for the most part, very fragmentary and full of gaps. Some parts of the messages can never be recovered again because during the actual intercept the complete message was not obtained. Other portions can be recovered only through the skill of the cryptographers and with the Bureau's assistance. Frequently, through an examination of the messages and from a review of Bureau files, the Bureau can offer suspects for individuals involved.
Belmont was frank with his colleagues:

It must be realized that the [deleted] cryptographers make certain assumptions as to meanings when deciphering these messages and thereafter the proper translations of Russian idioms can become a problem. It is for such reasons that [deleted] has indicated that almost anything included in a translation of one of these deciphered messages may in the future be radically revised."

"But the year 1995 was an epochal one for the study of American Communism. For in that year, thanks to the insistence of the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who had long specialized in intelligence matters, some 2,900 documents collectively known as "the Venona papers" (a deliberately meaningless code phrase) were de-classified and published. These were radio messages from the top KGB agents in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from approximately 1943 to 1948. They had been recorded at the time by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, but they were, of course, in code, and their decoding was an immensely arduous job carried out by a number of heroic government cryptanalysts over the period from 1945 to 1980.

A second new source of information on the American Communist Party was the archives in Moscow of the defunct Soviet Union, which began to be partially accessible to American investigators in the early 1990s, during the Yeltsin years.

The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.

Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe."

Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s."
The Claremont Institute - A Closer Look Under The Bed




The minor irritant is individuals such as you and your echo, who lean left...and have no actual knowledge....you wear ignorance as though it were a badge to be proud of.

....folks like myself who have engaged in indepth study in this area would laugh about you , but for the constant danger of you 'Fifth Columnists....'. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.





Here...from another book that I read, and you didn't:
"The federally funded “National History Standards” for elementary schools were released in 1994, cemented a revisionist view of American Communism for schoolteachers, as the guide mentions McCarthy over twenty times, while Edison and the Wright Brothers got no mention. “It …repeatedly condemns McCarthyism as an unmitigated evil…[but] the Hiss-Chambers and Rosenberg cases, the two dominant controversies of the anticommunist era, are described with bland, neutral language crafted to keep from implying guilt while not being quite so foolhardy as to actually assert innocence..’National Standards’…implies that the cases are part and parcel of the McCartyite horror.”
From “In Denial,” by Haynes and Klehr, pg. 151





Over 81 of the names McCarthy gave the Tydings committee resulting in resignations or movement of security risks. The New York Post's Eric Fettmann has noted: "growing historical evidence underscores that, whatever his rhetorical and investigative excesses - and they were substantial - McCarthy was a lot closer to the truth about Communism than were his foes."

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. It seems that some of our friends contend that ‘conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.




2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.” They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.

a. "The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

b. While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!


3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News




4. Here’s a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one they’ll be able to name is Thurmond….the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?

a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.




5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination.

The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.


So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of

slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.

How long have you worked for the Ministry of Truth?

 

[expatriate]

I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these. No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists. No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that. Times change. Parties change. Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception. The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities. Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE. They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these. No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists. No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that. Times change. Parties change. Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception. The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities. Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE. They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.

"No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."

Now...there's a step in the right direction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. It seems that some of our friends contend that ‘conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.




2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.” They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.

a. "The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

b. While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!


3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News




4. Here’s a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one they’ll be able to name is Thurmond….the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?

a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.




5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination.

The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.


So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of

slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.

How long have you worked for the Ministry of Truth?

Worked for????


I direct it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you are not in charge of this discussion and your question is not germane, don't worry if I ignore it.

You truly do not understand the narrative of politics in America. I bet you are going to say all violence is on the right, never on the left. Are you going to tell us the communists and many socialists are not authoritarian leftists.

I know what MR will do, while you are afraid of what he will do (move to the center).

You are entitled to be silly.

Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.

Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.

"It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."

The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.

So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.

Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"

Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?

Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is PC's boyfriend explaining on the New Right can "change that" narrative. Watch John Oliver expose far right thinking wish to change "facts, reality, and the meaning of words."

RNC 2012 - The Road to Jeb Bush 2016 - We Can Change That - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/30/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[NoNukes]

"...on the hatred..."
Now, nonoodles....look each of our posts....you're the angry one...I've been laughing at you all day.


"A pathetic Anne Coulter..."
So....which of her best-sellers have you read?


You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......

.....could you?

If you were laughing all day you must have finally gotten the humor in my original statement. I did not think that it was that funny though, but it is good to see that you can laugh at yourself.

So....which of her best-sellers have you read?


You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......

.....could you?

Read some of How To Talk To a Liberal. If You Must at a friends house when things were slow. Read an excerpt from If Democrats Had a Brain, They Would Be Republicans. Have seen her on television, read magazine articles, yada yada yada.

 

[Bfgrn]

Since you are not in charge of this discussion and your question is not germane, don't worry if I ignore it.

You truly do not understand the narrative of politics in America. I bet you are going to say all violence is on the right, never on the left. Are you going to tell us the communists and many socialists are not authoritarian leftists.

I know what MR will do, while you are afraid of what he will do (move to the center).

You are entitled to be silly.

Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.

Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"

Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?

Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.

I know exactly what I heard from Mittens Jake. Maybe you just weren't listening. You say he is not a teabagger, but Mitten has said he doesn't believe in climate change and he emphatically embraced the teabaggers anti-environment agenda when he promised to build the Keystone pipeline on Day 1 of his administration.

Maybe you heard it and you are just not smart enough to know what he was saying. And maybe you are not smart enough to know how dangerous that pipeline is to our people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know what I heard last night, and I was listening right along with you.

You biggest and worse lie of all is that MR is a Tea Bagger. He is not, and the Tea Party is terrified of him now.

Hey, you Tea folks, I told you your day of reckoning was coming. Guess what, it is here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know what I heard last night, and I was listening right along with you.

You biggest and worse lie of all is that MR is a Tea Bagger. He is not, and the Tea Party is terrified of him now.

Hey, you Tea folks, I told you your day of reckoning was coming. Guess what, it is here.

"...and the Tea Party is terrified of him now."

Wow, are you fulla beans!


And you claim you heard the debate???

Is it the A.D.D. acting up again?

Missed the parts where he referred to the Creator, the individual, role of government, our Founding Documents, support for the military?



Do I have to spoon-feed you Lefties every time????



1. Look, the right course for America's government, we were talking about the role of government, is not to become the economic player, picking winners and losers, telling people what kind of health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that has existed in this country for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world.

The right answer for government is say, How do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective? How do we get schools to be more competitive? Let's grade them. I propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a -- to a school that he's being more successful.


2. The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.
First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military.

Second, in that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by -- by one another.

We're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. And we -- we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a -- a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working.
Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com



That's conservative talk...and I'm in love!

 

[expatriate]

I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these. No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists. No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that. Times change. Parties change. Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception. The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities. Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE. They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.

"No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."

Now...there's a step in the right direction.

why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat? Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists? That is all part of the public record. Democrats in the south used to be racist bums. They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation. The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis. It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen. Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.

Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling. Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't. What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.

The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell. I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however. Honesty is always the best policy. Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled en masse by those dastardly democrats.

Oh.... don't think that will work? awwww too bad. I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The conservative talk was there, which we wanted, but the Tea Party nonsense was gone.

One example, he will use Romneycare at the national level, which we all knew he would have to do. Yes, the national government is not going to eliminate Medicare; yes, the national government is not going to eliminate Social Security; they are going to be there forty years from now for the younger American. Yes, the national government will continue to make the heath industry meet the needs of ALL Americans.

You far righties can cut and paste all you want.

We all heard what Romney said last night, and the Night of the Tea Party is over.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these. No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists. No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that. Times change. Parties change. Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception. The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities. Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE. They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.

"No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."

Now...there's a step in the right direction.

why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat? Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists? That is all part of the public record. Democrats in the south used to be racist bums. They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation. The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis. It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen. Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.

Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling. Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't. What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.

The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell. I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however. Honesty is always the best policy. Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled en masse by those dastardly democrats.

Oh.... don't think that will work? awwww too bad. I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.

1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.

Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.

Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.

a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
Yup...you.
But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.

So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....


2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?

Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.

And it's not because Republicans are racists.

This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.

Go ahead...prove the statement.

Or accept the deserved contumely.

 

[expatriate]

"No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."

Now...there's a step in the right direction.

why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat? Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists? That is all part of the public record. Democrats in the south used to be racist bums. They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation. The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis. It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen. Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.

Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling. Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't. What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.

The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell. I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however. Honesty is always the best policy. Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled en masse by those dastardly democrats.

Oh.... don't think that will work? awwww too bad. I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.

1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.

Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.

Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.

a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
Yup...you.
But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.

So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....


2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?

Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.

And it's not because Republicans are racists.

This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.

Go ahead...prove the statement.

Or accept the deserved contumely.

I don't need to "prove" any statement. The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need. And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number. It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists. That clearly is not working all that well for you. Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Political Chic will cut and paste nonsense, trying to overwhelm your common sense with her nonsense.

Fact: 90% of blacks obviously think her crap is crap.

Fact: the GOP has to reach out to blacks in a way that blacks believe to be realistic.

Fact: we are still waiting for the GOP to do that.

Fact: when more than 35% of blacks vote GOP for the first time in since the early 1960s, we can believe the GOP is trying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat? Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists? That is all part of the public record. Democrats in the south used to be racist bums. They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation. The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis. It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen. Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.

Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling. Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't. What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.

The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell. I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however. Honesty is always the best policy. Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled en masse by those dastardly democrats.

Oh.... don't think that will work? awwww too bad. I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.

1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.

Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.

Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.

a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
Yup...you.
But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.

So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....


2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?

Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.

And it's not because Republicans are racists.

This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.

Go ahead...prove the statement.

Or accept the deserved contumely.

I don't need to "prove" any statement. The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need. And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number. It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists. That clearly is not working all that well for you. Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?

1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "

Let me guess....another product of government schools.
Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.

Dim-wit.

Some are right, some are wrong.

a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
We're called conservatives.

The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic will cut and paste nonsense, trying to overwhelm your common sense with her nonsense.

Fact: 90% of blacks obviously think her crap is crap.

Fact: the GOP has to reach out to blacks in a way that blacks believe to be realistic.

Fact: we are still waiting for the GOP to do that.

Fact: when more than 35% of blacks vote GOP for the first time in since the early 1960s, we can believe the GOP is trying.

What a stupid analysis.

 

[expatriate]

1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.

Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.

Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.

a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
Yup...you.
But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.

So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....


2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?

Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.

And it's not because Republicans are racists.

This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.

Go ahead...prove the statement.

Or accept the deserved contumely.

I don't need to "prove" any statement. The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need. And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number. It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists. That clearly is not working all that well for you. Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?

1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "

Let me guess....another product of government schools.
Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.

Dim-wit.

Some are right, some are wrong.

a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
We're called conservatives.

The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

Here's what I know to be true: MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US. There is prima facie evidence to support this. I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations, I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities. And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats. We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts. From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks. The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"

And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.