NYTimes Exterminates George Bush!

[asaratis]

88% of Mississippians voted for Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater was the Republican.

Goldwater was one of the few Republicans who voted against the 64 Civil Rights bill.

Conservative racist Democrats in the South began a shift to voting Republican as soon as it became clear that the new Republican Party was their new home.

So it remains to this day.

Bullshit. Democrats in the South still vote Democrat or they don't vote. All you have to do is talk to them to find this out like I have. The difference today is there are fewer Democrats in the South these days. Most of them are transplants from other states. Folks moving here to escape high taxes in liberal Meccas like New York, Minnesota, California, etc. The South is still affordable, so people are moving here and changing the demographics. I talk to them every election. Most of the Dixicrats said they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Obama, so they didn't vote.

So you dispute what? That 88% of MS voters in 1964 voted for the Republican Goldwater?

They did. A state that was Democrat for a hundred years suddenly went Republican. Why?

Because Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act and Johnson didn't.

Wake up.

You wake up! Johnson was against civil rights for the negro until he realized how many votes the lying, sleazy Democrats could harvest from the black Democrat plantation.

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow readers:

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

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

The original House version:

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

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

The Senate version:

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

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

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

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

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

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Cherrypicking. If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes. The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither. You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region. That's still true; only the chosen party has changed. Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology. And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when it gets results. As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts. And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.

Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.

Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.

Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine. David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it? I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.

As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party registration. Party registration is meaningless. You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that they can have a voice in the local government structure. But voting trends show where the support lies.

As do these -- 1948:

(Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)

1968:

(Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting his own party)

1860:

(The Democrat Douglas is here represented in dark blue. One state, Missouri. The medium blue is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started two other parties)

Stop me when you see pattern...

Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:

A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:

(from the Library of Congress)

"I like Barry Goldwater. I believe what he believes in. I think the same way he thinks." -- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964

But there's no party shift going on. Riiight. Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?

I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on. That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period. The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made that a "racist" organization. You're just going to have to abandon those fallacies. That's all there is to it.

Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist. BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land. There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support from racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that. It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.

So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote. My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable. The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.

And yet that anecdote took place in Lincoln County, Mississippi.

It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in. Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible. History is complex, Political parties are not some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are not defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion. That kind of bullshit is not argument. It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.

We can do better than that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Cherrypicking. If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes. The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither. You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region. That's still true; only the chosen party has changed. Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology. And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when it gets results. As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts. And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.

Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.

Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.

Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine. David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it? I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.

As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party registration. Party registration is meaningless. You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that they can have a voice in the local government structure. But voting trends show where the support lies.

As do these -- 1948:

(Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)

1968:

(Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting his own party)

1860:

(The Democrat Douglas is here represented in dark blue. One state, Missouri. The medium blue is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started two other parties)

Stop me when you see pattern...

Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:

A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:

(from the Library of Congress)

"I like Barry Goldwater. I believe what he believes in. I think the same way he thinks." -- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964

But there's no party shift going on. Riiight. Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?

I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on. That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period. The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made that a "racist" organization. You're just going to have to abandon those fallacies. That's all there is to it.

Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist. BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land. There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support from racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that. It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.

So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote. My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable. The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.

And yet that anecdote took place in Lincoln County, Mississippi.

It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in. Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible. History is complex, Political parties are not some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are not defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion. That kind of bullshit is not argument. It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.

We can do better than that.

Oh, so he quit the Klan. That means because he quit he wasn't ever in the Klan.

Well Cheney quit Halliburton and you dipshits never let that fly. Amazing the constant double-standards coming from the left.

Course Halliburton was evil...evil.....evil.....even though they still have contracts under Obama and they had the contract over in Somalia under Clinton while I was there. But that's just a clerical error......

 

[Pogo]

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?


And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?


Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Cherrypicking. If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes. The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither. You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region. That's still true; only the chosen party has changed. Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology. And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when it gets results. As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts. And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.

Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.

Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.

Robert Byrd quit the Klan before he ever even ran for office, let alone held one, so that's more of the same guilt-by-association generalization malarkey at the wheel of a time machine. David Vitter paid a call girl to dress him up in diapers -- does that mean all "Republicans" -- or all "Louisianans" or all "Metairieans" or all "guys named David" do it? I don't think it does but you go ahead and make that case.

As far as these maps and the party shift, I'm talking there about behavior -- not party registration. Party registration is meaningless. You can register for a party (as many do) so that they can vote in their state's primary for that party or so that they can have a voice in the local government structure. But voting trends show where the support lies.

As do these -- 1948:

(Yellow = Strom Thurmond, after walking out of the DP convention and starting his own party)

1968:

(Yellow = George Wallace, after tiring of "liberals" and starting his own party)

1860:

(The Democrat Douglas is here represented in dark blue. One state, Missouri. The medium blue is Breckenridge and the yellow, Bell -- after the South completely disrupted the DP convention and started two other parties)

Stop me when you see pattern...

Your turning point is here -- 1964, two months after Thurmond went to the RP and four months after Goldwater voted against the CRA:

A picture says a thousand words -- this from July 12, 1964:

(from the Library of Congress)

"I like Barry Goldwater. I believe what he believes in. I think the same way he thinks." -- Robert Creel, Alabama KKK Grand Dragon, 1964

But there's no party shift going on. Riiight. Did you know George Wallace wanted to be his running mate and Goldwater had to talk him out of running on his own in '64 (as he did on the next two rounds)?

I think the reason summa y'all object to this being pointed out is somehow you imagine your reader is going to traffic in the same fallacies of Composition and Guilt by Association that you tried to ride in on. That's not the case; a fallacy is a fallacy, period. The fact that KKK and/or racists may be attracted to the RP in 1964 and beyond no more makes the RP "racist" than their gravitation to the DP before that point made that a "racist" organization. You're just going to have to abandon those fallacies. That's all there is to it.

Nor, I should add, does it make Goldwater a racist. BG had his own reasons, truly conservative in spirit, for opposing the CRA that had nothing to do with race, and to his eternal credit rejected playing up the race issue, even declaring the CRA, which he had voted against, should be given a chance to work once it was the law of the land. There's no indication, as far as I know, that Goldwater was a racist or anything less than a man of solid principle, and the simple fact of support from racists -- who may desire a common goal for completely different reasons-- doesn't change that. It would be just as fallacious to infer that through the logical back door, and I mean 'back door' in both senses.

So this point was about behavior patterns -- illustrated by vote. My grandfather used to tell this story of counting votes in the 1940 election, in southern Mississippi:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

As always the humor is based on a reality -- that being that voting for or associating with the party of Lincoln in the South was, for 99 years, unthinkable. The maps above clearly show exactly when that reversed itself.

And yet that anecdote took place in Lincoln County, Mississippi.

It is not a simple, straightforward, dichotomous cops-and-robbers, good guys vs. bad guys world we live in. Those who try to portray it as such ::Lush:: cough ::Rimjob: are using Eliminationist tactics to polarize the gullible. History is complex, Political parties are not some kind of static fixed point in space, and they are not defined by anyone associated with them that we cherrypick for the occasion. That kind of bullshit is not argument. It's cheapass rhetorical fluff, verbal cotton candy -- all air and no substance.

We can do better than that.

Oh, so he quit the Klan. That means because he quit he wasn't ever in the Klan.

Well Cheney quit Halliburton and you dipshits never let that fly.

Course the Halliburton was evil...evil.....evil.....even though they still have contracts under Obama and they had the contract over in Somalia under Clinton while I was there. But that's just a clerical error......

Who in the blue fuck brought up Halliburton?
Which reminds us, how's that search coming along for those other strawmen? You know, my posts about Hillary, my posts about the Tea Party, my posts about Republicans being racist...

Taking a while, innit?
Wonder why.

Btw you completely ignored my question about Vitter that demonstrates the folly of such blatant fallacy.

Wonder why.

 

[Redfish]

So Johnson signs the Civil Rights bill, he's the racist.

Goldwater votes against it, then within months is the presidential nominee of the GOP, and somehow he's the black man's best friend.

You're fucking nuts.

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

 

[jon_berzerk]

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

it was an accident so they say

what a bunch of frikkin losers

 

[Pogo]

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

it was an accident so they say

what a bunch of frikkin losers

Where did anybody say it was an "accident"?

It was neither accident nor a "crop". You cannot "crop" what isn't there in the first place.
We did this. Read the thread.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Has someone already posted the reason for this?

The photo that included a figure that sorta looked like the shrub didn't belong to the NYT. It wasn't theirs to publish.

Its a non-issue, BUT I do think we should give the shrub credit for showing up. That's more than the Big Tent Repubs could manage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Has someone already posted the reason for this?

The photo that included a figure that sorta looked like the shrub didn't belong to the NYT. It wasn't theirs to publish.

Its a non-issue, BUT I do think we should give the shrub credit for showing up. That's more than the Big Tent Repubs could manage.

You don't really believe that ......do you?

You'd have to be pretty stupid to accept th........

....never mind.

 

[Pogo]

So Johnson signs the Civil Rights bill, he's the racist.

Goldwater votes against it, then within months is the presidential nominee of the GOP, and somehow he's the black man's best friend.

You're fucking nuts.

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

 

[Redfish]

So Johnson signs the Civil Rights bill, he's the racist.

Goldwater votes against it, then within months is the presidential nominee of the GOP, and somehow he's the black man's best friend.

You're fucking nuts.

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

Don't lie.

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 'bomb' ad aired in September

Daisy advertisement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Don't lie. And don't ever claim you never lie, lol, I'm saving this post.

 

[Redfish]

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

Don't lie.

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 'bomb' ad aired in September

Daisy advertisement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Don't lie. And don't ever claim you never lie, lol, I'm saving this post.

I guess my memory was off. I remembered it as closer than that.

your second cite did confirm the positive affect that the ad had for Johnson, even though it only ran for a short time.

I don't lie, so no need to save that post. When I am wrong I admit it, unlike 99% of liberals.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

That is a stupid lie. LBJ was up more than 60 points on Goldwater in May, and still 37 to 40 points or so up on him BEFORE the ad aired in September, 1964. The election was never close, not even for one single day.

Go fuck yourself, you stupid POS.

 

[Redfish]

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

That is a stupid lie. LBJ was up more than 60 points on Goldwater in May, and still 37 to 40 points or so up on him BEFORE the ad aired in September, 1964. The election was never close, not even for one single day.

Go fuck yourself, you stupid POS.

see post #293 then go fuck yourself you stupid arrogant piece of dog shit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.

 

[Redfish]

I love it when facts hit RWNJs squarely in the ass.

99% of the time the facts are rammed up your arrogant ass. when we are wrong 1% of the time we admit it. its the difference between being honest and being a libtardian democrat.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

I lived through it too. It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally. It's in one of my previous links. But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close" At all.

And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC. It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence. The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.

You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam. We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid. You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"

As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP. But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage. That had way more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.

 

[Redfish]

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

I lived through it too. It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally. It's in one of my previous links. But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close" At all.

And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC. It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence. The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.

You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam. We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid. You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"

As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP. But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage. That had way more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.

its funny how people who lived through that time have different memories of it. I guess history depends on who is writing the book. Oh well.

 

[Pogo]

Uh, no.

Barry Goldwater did himself in with his comments about nuking our foes.

wrong again, the dems effectively misquoted Goldwater and put out a very effective ad. Negative ads work, they don't need to be true.

I don't think either of those are accurate as causation.
Goldwater really had no shot regardless who campaigned with what (and btw that daisy ad ran a total of one time IIRC). He had no shot because the country was still in a mass sympathy shock over the Assssination. Barring some massive fuckup, LBJ was virtually guaranteed a massive landslide on those coattails alone. And Goldwater knew it; he articulated as much.

I don't know how old you are, but I lived through that. The election was very close until the bomb ad came out and it completely changed it.

But just think, LBJ gave us 58,000 dead americans in viet nam for absolutely nothing. Goldwater may have been right.

I lived through it too. It was never close. Goldwater's candidacy was a matter of going through the motions -- he said himself he realized that once Kennedy's assassination tore the nation emotionally. It's in one of my previous links. But no, there was never a time when that election was "very close" At all.

And as I said, the bomb ad ran a total of one time IIRC. It's more famous now for its tactics than it was then as a campaign influence. The ad didn't do squat for the electorate.

You are correct about LBJ and Vietnam. We made that point repeatedly at the time and drove him to abandon any re-election bid. You may remember the chant, "hey hey LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?"

As for Goldwater he may have been right, and reasonable, about a lot of stuff, and I respect his later views on what was happening with "social conservatives" taking over the RP. But on the whole he was way too far right for America at the time, and again anyone running in the fumes of the horror of Assassination already had a huge advantage. That had way more to do with Johnson's plurality than any bomb ad.

its funny how people who lived through that time have different memories of it. I guess history depends on who is writing the book. Oh well.

Neurologists tell us that the way our memories work is a series of repeated stories that we tell ourselves over and over. The more one tells oneself the same story, the more susceptible it is to embellishment from the context of the present. I was a kid then and not political, but I understood emotion. And it was definitely a deep palpable elephant in the room. But if you look up polls through the campaign of that year you'll see the numbers (here) -- LBJ consistently held a 2-to-1 lead.