Let's play a game! It's called, who's the REAL racist.

[candycorn]

I'll have them niggas voting democrat for the next hundred years.
They're super predators.

VS

No Muslims allowed till we get to the bottom of what's going on.
I'll deport the illegals & build a wall.
Which set of statements constitutes racism?

Whichever one was said by the republican

jk

 

[Syriusly]

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Virtually every Senator and legistator from Dixie voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act- regardless of party.

Because the South was deeply Southern.

Which is why the Southern Conservative Democrat leaders blamed the racial strife on liberals and commies
From Wallace's 1963 inaugeral address- as he blames liberals- not conservatives- for the racial strife.

 

[Syriusly]

Hillary has proven that she is a fraud and doesnt care for Black People, hasnt anyone ever taken notice that we never see Hillary Clinton in the same pic as Michelle,,or a photo of Hillary hugging and kissing Michelle O?

Mrs. Tuzla Clinton doesn't want to be in any pictures with younger people that will make her look even more like the old dried up grandma she is.

Hillary Clinton- born 1947- grandmother of 1
Donald Trump- born 1946- grandfather of 6

Once again the Trumpsters show their 'great respect' for women.

 

[jc456]

I'll have them niggas voting democrat for the next hundred years.
They're super predators.

VS

No Muslims allowed till we get to the bottom of what's going on.
I'll deport the illegals & build a wall.


Which set of statements constitutes racism?

LBJ never said it.

Your boy is violating the Constitution.

End of discussion

Your boy is violating the Constitution.
he is, how do you figure?

 

[davecmarino]

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

Which prominent Republican voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Barry Goldwater- the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

What did Martin Luther King Jr. say about the Republican candidate who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

View attachment 76127

The man who really got the law passed was William McCulloch a Republican from Ohio. Jackie Kennedy even attributed the acts success to him.

The one who stood in the way was Virginia Democrat Howard Smith.

Barry Goldwater had supported Civil Rights and did not oppose the bill on the basis of being a racist but on the Federal powers it would create as he was a staunch constitutionalist. He did lose because he was smeared as a racist by LBJ which is laughable but was politics then as it is now. Once the left got a hold of that terminology, it became their only tool to keep power.

But LBJ led us down a path of destruction to Carter and I believe that LBJ was just a manipulative guy who had a great read on the pulse of the people. Timing is everything.

You know who else has a great read on the people today and seems to have great timing....funny how sometimes no matter how things change they just remain the same.

 

[Syriusly]

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

Bravo and extension of the lie about democrats. I am impressed with you ability to imagine things that just are not so.

The unvarnished truth is, they were democrats. No way around it.

The unvarnished truth is that they were Conservatives- who believed in prayer in the schools, a smaller Federal government, greater states rights, less aid to the poor

And they were Democrats.

No way around that.

 

[davecmarino]

No but he was instrumental in getting the Dems to vote for it. Dr Martin Luther King was the single most instrumental man.

LBJ publicly pressured Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Kennedy.

Which resulted in a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting for it.

And then he signed the bill

July 2, 1964

—President Johnson, upon signing the Civil Rights Act- stating:

"This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country. So tonight I urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife — I urge every American — to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people, and to bring peace to our land.

"My fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. We must not fail. Let us close the springs of racial poison. Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside irrelevant differences and make our nation whole. Let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise God who is the father of us all."

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

We found that excerpt in the book as well as these vignettes:

--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."

Next, we asked an expert in the offices of the U.S. Senate to check on Johnson’s votes on civil rights measures as a lawmaker. By email, Betty Koed, an associate historian for the Senate, said that according to information compiled by the Senate Library, in "the rare cases when" such "bills came to a roll call vote, it appears that" Johnson "consistently voted against" them or voted to stop consideration.

Thanks for proving my point.
You are dismissed.

Go fuck yourself you liberal hack. You are a moron who has to ignore history to feel good about yourself.

Your point is that you are a moron who only knows liberal talking points instead of facts.

You are a miserable scumbag.

LOL....typical right wing nut job.

When confronted with the facts he flips out and goes directly to personal attacks.

Typical livers who has to change and ignore real history to make their shit believable. Fucking losers don't like it when they are told they are full of shit losers. Too bad. Go cry to your mommy.

 

[Syriusly]

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Anyone who knows history knows the reason why they were Democrats.

Because no Southern politician dared be a Republican after the Civil War.

What you want to do is ignore the fact that they were the most Conservative area of the United States- and still are.

Their political points of view have not changed much- only their political parties.

 

[Syriusly]

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Having lived in the south, both Georgia and North Carolina, the Republicans are clearly dominating because of fiscal policy. Racism is across both parties and still heavily Democrat. "Southerners" are not one group.

L

Republicans are clearly dominating because there are more whites in the South- and they mostly vote Republican, just as most blacks vote Democrat.

Which is what changed after 1964.

 

[Syriusly]

Go fuck yourself you liberal hack. You are a moron who has to ignore history to feel good about yourself.Your point is that you are a moron who only knows liberal talking points instead of facts.You are a miserable scumbag.

So it appears we have someone here calling Rabbi a "liberal hack".

Yeah- its pretty amusing to those of us who are liberals and have clashed with Rabbi many times.

 

[Syriusly]

LBJ publicly pressured Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Kennedy.

Which resulted in a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting for it.

And then he signed the bill

July 2, 1964

—President Johnson, upon signing the Civil Rights Act- stating:

"This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country. So tonight I urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife — I urge every American — to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people, and to bring peace to our land.

"My fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. We must not fail. Let us close the springs of racial poison. Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside irrelevant differences and make our nation whole. Let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise God who is the father of us all."

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

We found that excerpt in the book as well as these vignettes:

--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."

Next, we asked an expert in the offices of the U.S. Senate to check on Johnson’s votes on civil rights measures as a lawmaker. By email, Betty Koed, an associate historian for the Senate, said that according to information compiled by the Senate Library, in "the rare cases when" such "bills came to a roll call vote, it appears that" Johnson "consistently voted against" them or voted to stop consideration.

Thanks for proving my point.
You are dismissed.

Go fuck yourself you liberal hack. You are a moron who has to ignore history to feel good about yourself.

Your point is that you are a moron who only knows liberal talking points instead of facts.

You are a miserable scumbag.

LOL....typical right wing nut job.

When confronted with the facts he flips out and goes directly to personal attacks.

Typical livers who has to change and ignore real history to make their shit believable. Fucking losers don't like it when they are told they are full of shit losers. Too bad. Go cry to your mommy.

LOL....typical right wing nut job with the vocabularly of a 12 year old boy out of earshot of the playground monitors.

When confronted with the facts he flips out and goes directly to personal attacks

 

[Syriusly]

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

Which prominent Republican voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Barry Goldwater- the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

What did Martin Luther King Jr. say about the Republican candidate who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

View attachment 76127

The man who really got the law passed was William McCulloch a Republican from Ohio. Jackie Kennedy even attributed the acts success to him.
..

I am sure William McCulloch played his part- because remember, the Democrats could not pass the bill without Republican assistance.

It was a Democrat initiated bill, skillfully manipulated through Congress by LBJ, who was indeed a master manipulator of Congress, despite reluctance by Republicans to be voting with the Democrats, and despite the ardent opposition of the Southern Democrat Caucus.

 

[Syriusly]

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Do you think Zell Miller is no different than Elizabeth Warren? They're both Democrats.

Now you are getting it. Two idiots, both Democrats. See the pattern forming.

I had to put her on ignore for spamming, and kept her there because she continued to spam me while on ignore, so I only see her questions when someone quotes her.

But she's seriously asking if don't you think Zell Miller, who wrote "A National Party No More" about the Democrat Party is the same as Elizabeth Warren to demonstrate Democrats are different? The guy who wrote a book that the Democrats aren't what they were when he joined the party? That's classic.

BTW, it was a great book if you haven't read it

He put me on ignore because I whipped his ass in so many debates he couldn't take it anymore.

Kaz's strategy is to lie, lie some more, and then when confronted too many times by his lies, to put you on ignore.

I call it the Ostrich approach.

 

[davecmarino]

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

You clearly know nothing about this.
Republicans didnt care about civil rights for blacks because most Republicans represented states with few blacks.

What a liberal hack you are. The Civil Rights Act of both 1957 and 1960 were pushed in Congress by Republicans and LBJ and the democrats fought against it. Try a history book. You might learn the truth.

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Virtually every Senator and legistator from Dixie voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act- regardless of party.

Because the South was deeply Southern.

Which is why the Southern Conservative Democrat leaders blamed the racial strife on liberals and commies
From Wallace's 1963 inaugeral address- as he blames liberals- not conservatives- for the racial strife.
View attachment 76128

View attachment 76129

View attachment 76130

There was a conservative coalition in Congress and the southern Democrats were a voting block with in it when it came to opposing the growth of federal power. The conservative coalition voted against the southern democrats on every single civil rights act.

Keep trying but conservatives fought to free the slaves and fought for civil rights. You calling The Dixiecrats conservative in bullshit as they were their own coalition of democrat Dixiecrats.

Dixiecrats were also for international policy but the Republican conservative coalition was not.

Simple fact is that there people were the dying breath of the Democrats in the south.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent description and projection of the far right reactionary revisionists:

"Typical livers who has to change and ignore real history to make their shit believable. Fucking losers don't like it when they are told they are full of shit losers. Too bad. Go cry to your mommy."

The ultra conservatives in both parties always abhor civil liberties.

 

[davecmarino]

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

We found that excerpt in the book as well as these vignettes:

--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."

Next, we asked an expert in the offices of the U.S. Senate to check on Johnson’s votes on civil rights measures as a lawmaker. By email, Betty Koed, an associate historian for the Senate, said that according to information compiled by the Senate Library, in "the rare cases when" such "bills came to a roll call vote, it appears that" Johnson "consistently voted against" them or voted to stop consideration.

Thanks for proving my point.
You are dismissed.

Go fuck yourself you liberal hack. You are a moron who has to ignore history to feel good about yourself.

Your point is that you are a moron who only knows liberal talking points instead of facts.

You are a miserable scumbag.

LOL....typical right wing nut job.

When confronted with the facts he flips out and goes directly to personal attacks.

Typical livers who has to change and ignore real history to make their shit believable. Fucking losers don't like it when they are told they are full of shit losers. Too bad. Go cry to your mommy.

LOL....typical right wing nut job with the vocabularly of a 12 year old boy out of earshot of the playground monitors.

When confronted with the facts he flips out and goes directly to personal attacks

Keep crying ****.

 

[davecmarino]

The conservative Democrats fought against all of the Civil Rights Acts.

Because they were conservatives.

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Having lived in the south, both Georgia and North Carolina, the Republicans are clearly dominating because of fiscal policy. Racism is across both parties and still heavily Democrat. "Southerners" are not one group.

L

Republicans are clearly dominating because there are more whites in the South- and they mostly vote Republican, just as most blacks vote Democrat.

Which is what changed after 1964.

It changed before 1964. It changed under Roosevelt. You really don't know the history of our country besides for talking points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, because they were racist Democrats. Nice try at a projection of your party's lack of values onto others. You really haven't got a clue what conservatism is because you are so entrenched in party rhetoric that you just fight out of ignorance.

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Having lived in the south, both Georgia and North Carolina, the Republicans are clearly dominating because of fiscal policy. Racism is across both parties and still heavily Democrat. "Southerners" are not one group.

L

Republicans are clearly dominating because there are more whites in the South- and they mostly vote Republican, just as most blacks vote Democrat.

Which is what changed after 1964.

It changed before 1964. It changed under Roosevelt. You really don't know the history of our country besides for talking points.

You did not go to college, did you? You are learning from revisionist web sites, are you not, that ignore the facts?

 

[davecmarino]

Why did southern Democrats call themselves conservatives if they weren't conservative?

Why did southern conservative Democrats join with conservative Republicans to form the Conservative Coalition if they weren't conservatives?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance of history is sadly comical.

The real question is, if they were conservative, instead of just calling them conservatives, why would they be democrats? So let's just focus on what we know to be true, they were democrats.

Having lived in the south, both Georgia and North Carolina, the Republicans are clearly dominating because of fiscal policy. Racism is across both parties and still heavily Democrat. "Southerners" are not one group.

L

Republicans are clearly dominating because there are more whites in the South- and they mostly vote Republican, just as most blacks vote Democrat.

Which is what changed after 1964.

It changed before 1964. It changed under Roosevelt. You really don't know the history of our country besides for talking points.

You did not go to college, did you? You are learning from revisionist web sites, are you not, that ignore the facts?

I'll put my college degrees up against yours anytime, you are a moron.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU
Barry Goldwater had supported Civil Rights and did not oppose the bill on the basis of being a racist but on the Federal powers it would create as he was a staunch constitutionalist. He did lose because he was smeared as a racist by LBJ which is laughable but was politics then as it is now. Once the left got a hold of that terminology, it became their only tool to keep power..

He wasn't smeared as being a racist- he was correctly portrayed as having opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

What do you think of Martin Luther King Jr.?