Dixiecrats Became Republicans??? A Lie.

[JakeStarkey]

The stupidity of your reply reveals that you cannot rebuke it.

Of course you cannot rebuke the truth.

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.

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?

 

[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.

So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?

What is "the liberal/black agenda"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

 

[expatriate]

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.

"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

actually. your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition. every dime of it.

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree? You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Don't be too sure...

Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste

She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

actually. your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition. every dime of it.

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree? You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.

Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Case closed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Don't be too sure...

Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste

She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter

Would you mind if I put up an OP with your name in the title?

If you say 'no,' I won't.

 

[rightwinger]

"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

actually. your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition. every dime of it.

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree? You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.

Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Case closed.

What was yours?

"Highlight text, right click, select copy"

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Don't be too sure...

Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste

She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter

Would you mind if I put up an OP with your name in the title?

If you say 'no,' I won't.

Go for it

We need another thread highlighting your ability to cut and paste

 

[expatriate]

"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

actually. your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition. every dime of it.

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree? You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.

Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Case closed.

no. my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens. And yours was?

And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans. Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours. Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks. It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now? You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base. If it works, don't fix it, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Salty, you ask her to think and she grid locks. She is consulting Coulter.

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.

So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?

What is "the liberal/black agenda"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

actually. your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition. every dime of it.

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree? You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.

Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Case closed.

no. my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens. And yours was?

And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans. Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours. Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks. It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now? You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base. If it works, don't fix it, eh?

In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are such a coward, Brfgrn. You certainly did not run with the bad dogs in the day at all.

Romney, as you well know, since you listened Wednesday night, gave a right of center approach, not a Tea Party approach.

You can't refute that, and that just burns you. Tough.

 

[Sallow]

It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation

What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation

The south has been Republican ever since

Don't bother.

PC is bad at history and cognition.

But she's brilliant at cut and paste.

 

[Sallow]

You are such a coward, Brfgrn. You certainly did not run with the bad dogs in the day at all.

Romney, as you well know, since you listened Wednesday night, gave a right of center approach, not a Tea Party approach.

You can't refute that, and that just burns you. Tough.

Of course he did.

He dropped the "etch -a- sketch" bomb. He's completely un-moored from the Tea Party.

Which wasn't the case just a few short months ago.

Fortunately..we have the video.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have said for months that Romney would move away from the crazees; he has to do so.

Obamaniacs have an opportunity to lever the holes in the narrative.

Romney never should have kissed up to the TP, but it is what it is.

 

[Sallow]

I have said for months that Romney would move away from the crazees; he has to do so.

Obamaniacs have an opportunity to lever the holes in the narrative.

Romney never should have kissed up to the TP, but it is what it is.

Erm.

One day you make make sense.

That isn't today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation

What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation

The south has been Republican ever since

Don't bother.

PC is bad at history and cognition.

But she's brilliant at cut and paste.

You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit…

 

[Greenbeard]

1. The Democratic nominee for President in 1948 was Harry Truman.

Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, desegregating and requiring equal opportunity in the Armed Forces. After several years of planning, recommendations and revisions between Truman, the Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity and the various branches of the military, Army units became racially integrated.

Another executive order, also in 1948, made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race. A third, in 1951, established the Committee on Government Contract Compliance (CGCC). This committee ensured that defense contractors did not discriminate because of race.

2. The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic Convention in 1948 following a very famous pro-civil rights speech. They chose to briefly form their own third party and fielded a candidate against the Democratic nominee.

When Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey addressed the convention, he urged the Democratic Party to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights," prompting a walkout by Southern delegates who later nominated Strom Thurmond as the presidential nominee of the States' Rights Party (Dixiecrats).

3. Strom Thurmond did in fact become a Republican. Over the Democratic Party's position on civil rights, even.

Thurmond was increasingly at odds with the national Democratic Party, some of whose leaders were supporting the civil rights movement led by African Americans in the South seeking enforcement of their right as citizens to vote and an end to racial segregation. On September 16, 1964, he switched his party affiliation to the Republican Party, which was seeking to revive its presence in the South by appealing to conservative voters.