Part (3) The True Democrat!

[Pogo]

Bullshit. History reveals no such thing.

Lots of people attended lynchings. Some took pictures. Some made postcards. Some even bought and sold body parts as souvenirs.

NONE of them stood on the side checking voter registrations. Dumbass.


Bullshit.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded by six Confederate war vets in Pulaski, Tennessee. Not by a political party. Several other regional terrorist organizations were formed around the same time -- White League; Red Caps; Knights of the White Camellia ... and others. NONE of them were formed by political parties.

Bullshit.

Actually more Ds than Rs voted for it, but that's not significant. Here's what is:.

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.

Maybe you should break down and buy a history book, Dumbass.

And again, there is no such thing as a "Democrat Party". There never has been.

Yes...bullshit....the first grand dragon of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forest, a democrat.

Forrest was a soldier (and a slave trader and plantation owner) -- not a politician. He was recruited by the KKK -- which already existed -- in April of 1867 to be a figurehead that they hoped would give the organization "street cred" in the South. Not a founder. Further, a year and a half later (January 1869) he decided the group's activities were out of hand, disbanded it, and later denied ever having been part of it.

The group ignored the disband order and continued ad hoc for another decade before it was exterminated.

The 1964 Civil Rights act is what you democrat racists always use to hide your racism. The Republicans voted less for this Civil Rights act because many thought it went too far in putting the Federal Government interferring in Private businesses with the Accomodation laws it created...and we see they were right as the government is used to go after Christian businsses who won't serve gay weddings.

What you racist democrats hide, is that the Republicans voted in majorities for all the other civil rights acts, while the democrats fought all of them.

First off I have no political party so "you democrat racists" is nothing more than your own message board wankitude. But my numbers are accurate. I defy you to show where they're not.

[Try to hide the truth by focusing on the 1964 act where the Libertarian Republicans decided it went too far, going beyond protecting the Civil Rights of blacks and giving too much power to the government.

The 1964 legislation is the one the OP referred to. That is, before you tried to shift somewhere else because you can't deal with the present point.

[Don't let the racist democrats preach about how the parties changed sides with the 1964 civil rights act.

Strom Thurmond did. Two months later. Before that such a switch was unthinkable in the South.

The parties didn't change in 1964. That happened at the turn of the previous century.

The 1964 legislation is the one the OP referred to. That is, before you tried to shift somewhere else because you can't deal with the present point.

What you actually mean is before I showed that you focus on the 1964 Civil Rights act because it isn't the truth of the Republican party and the Civil Rights movement. The Republicans supported all the Civil Rights legislation and many decided not to support the 64 legislation because they saw that the accomodation laws and the hiring practice laws would be abused by racists.....as they are being abused today by the democrat racist groups....

EARTH TO STUPID....

HERE is the section, taken directly from the OP, right at the top of it, that I QUOTED TO RESPOND TO:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

--- Now what does that say? 1957?

DUMBASS.

Nice try ass wipe.......I told you why some Republicans voted against it.....they didn't support giving the federal government power through the accomodation laws and the hiring laws........they voted for all the other Civil Rights acts that the democrats voted against, but the 64 act went too far in creating new racism......

They believed in freedom, not government control asswipe.

Interestingly, that's what was going on in the second half of the 19th century in the South, only with those two parties reversed. The newfangled Republican Party was the home of "big government" (a legacy of the Whigs) while the Democrats were the locally-focused "states rights" party.

I'm sure you knew that. But back up here....

but the 64 act went too far in creating new racism......

Did it now. Because you just got done with a big song and dance trying to tell us more Republicans than Democrats voted for it. Yet here you're also saying it "went too far" and "created new racism"...

-- So you're saying Republicans are racists?

Interesting. I hadn't though of that.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Horseshit. I already put up ten (10) links that disprove that. Go ahead and find one -- even one -- that proves your point.

you are full of shit

you gave bits and pieces

fact is the KKK was a product of the democrat party

they even attacked and hung republicans that helped out the free blacks

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

oh btw over the years hundreds upon hundreds of links of the KKK in relation to the democrats

which you seemingly always ignore

The next one will make a total of .... one.

no matter how you want to spin it the KKK is and was a product of the democrat party

Horseshit. I already put up ten (10) links that disprove that. Go ahead and find one -- even one -- that proves your point.

you are full of shit

you gave bits and pieces

fact is the KKK was a product of the democrat party

they even attacked and hung republicans that helped out the free blacks

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party. Even if there were such an entity as a "democrat party" which has never existed. I demonstrated all this in my list of links. I'm afraid my links trump your links because --- oh wait --- you don't have any.

Of course, full disclosure here, I'm working under a handicap. I'm limited to trivial things like, you know, "history" and "facts". You know, stuff found in "books". I don't have access to the Glenn Beck fantasy wet dreams crocked up to sell gold bars.

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

And do you have any clue in the world what that reason is? Actually I already posted on it right here. Let's see if you can figure it out. Open book test.

Fun fact: 1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted. Edward Jackson was already in office. Jack Walton had been removed from office the year before.

All this going on simultaneously. An old toast says, "may you live in interesting times". And we think we have lively campaigns...

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party.

except the democrat party

1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted

maybe like i stated before there certainly was a few crossovers just

as there are crossover progressives

but is undenialable that by far the kkk flocked to the 24 dnc convention

 

[Pogo]

you are full of shit

you gave bits and pieces

fact is the KKK was a product of the democrat party

they even attacked and hung republicans that helped out the free blacks

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

oh btw over the years hundreds upon hundreds of links of the KKK in relation to the democrats

which you seemingly always ignore

The next one will make a total of .... one.

Horseshit. I already put up ten (10) links that disprove that. Go ahead and find one -- even one -- that proves your point.

you are full of shit

you gave bits and pieces

fact is the KKK was a product of the democrat party

they even attacked and hung republicans that helped out the free blacks

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party. Even if there were such an entity as a "democrat party" which has never existed. I demonstrated all this in my list of links. I'm afraid my links trump your links because --- oh wait --- you don't have any.

Of course, full disclosure here, I'm working under a handicap. I'm limited to trivial things like, you know, "history" and "facts". You know, stuff found in "books". I don't have access to the Glenn Beck fantasy wet dreams crocked up to sell gold bars.

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

And do you have any clue in the world what that reason is? Actually I already posted on it right here. Let's see if you can figure it out. Open book test.

Fun fact: 1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted. Edward Jackson was already in office. Jack Walton had been removed from office the year before.

All this going on simultaneously. An old toast says, "may you live in interesting times". And we think we have lively campaigns...

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party.

except the democrat party

1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted

maybe like i stated before there certainly was a few crossovers just

as there are crossover progressives

but is undenialable that by far the kkk flocked to the 24 dnc convention

Again, no link whatsoever. Just disconnected bullshit aimlessly wandering in space.

No, Morley, Jackson and Means were not "Progressives". Not a one. The Progressives were mostly gone by then. Those guys were Klan and they were Republicans. In 1924 when the Klan was ascendant and all that was going on the Klan disrupted the Democratic convention to continue opposing the nomination chances of Oscar Underwood, a Senator from Alabama who was the leading voice denouncing the Klan and was getting damn vocal about it, noting the Klan had already cost him the Georgia primary race. Underwood, his platform plank and his nomination were successfully blocked. They also came to block the nomination of Al Smith (because he was a Catholic).

>> Underwood led the anti-Ku Klux Klan forces at the 1924 Democratic National Convention. He was a longtime opponent of the Klan. In 1924, when the Klan organized a parade in Birmingham during that year's Democratic National Convention, Underwood called it an effort "to intimidate me, the Alabama delegation and the democratic party....It will not succeed....I maintain that the organization is a national menace....It is either the Ku Klux Klan or the United States of America. Both cannot survive. Between the two, I choose my country."[9] << (-- Wiki: Oscar Underwood)​

The Klan succeeded in cockblocking enough votes (the convention went on over two weeks) that both Underwood and Smith were denied and dark horse John Davis got the spot. They came back four years later to try to block Smith again but failed in 1928 and Smith got the nomination.

That's what your "Klanbake" was about; outside agitation to intimidate a political process. Thanks for doing your fuckin' homework. Y'all are like the kid in high school who never bothers to read the material, then come the big test you wanna copy off somebody else's page who did the work. But when the paper you copy off of is Glenn Beck's Bullshit Manifestos (or whichever partisan hack demagogue, they all look alike), you're gonna get embarrassed.

Underwood btw was an opponent of Prohibition, which the Klan supported in its self-described role as moral police force, what we would call today a "Taliban", reflecting the social nature it always claimed for itself. Just as it went after "loose women", pulling one woman out of her home and whipping her in the street for "not going to church" and when her 15-year-old son came to defend her, whipped him too.

Because the Klan was a morals-based organization, not a political one. When it engaged in politics at all it supported or opposed Democrats or Republicans, whichever would suit their needs in that time and place, its universal quest being as they described it "100% Americanism", in effect a Christianist "Sharia Law".

Pop quiz: Who was the first President after Grant to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

Lyndon Johnson (1965)

So the question remains unmolested: why would a political party use its own organization to block its own candidates, remove its own candidates already holding office (Walton), work to get candidates from the opposition party elected (Means, Morley, Jackson et al), oppose its own constituency interest groups (blacks, women, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, unions) and then prosecute its own organization?

If you've got a political party, and one of your reliable constituencies is, for example, Jews -- do you then send your own outside affiliate terrorist organization to go out an lynch Jews? Diga me, on what planet does that make any sense at all?

You can't answer that, because to do so would confirm that your whole premise is bullshit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

oh btw over the years hundreds upon hundreds of links of the KKK in relation to the democrats

which you seemingly always ignore

The next one will make a total of .... one.

you are full of shit

you gave bits and pieces

fact is the KKK was a product of the democrat party

they even attacked and hung republicans that helped out the free blacks

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party. Even if there were such an entity as a "democrat party" which has never existed. I demonstrated all this in my list of links. I'm afraid my links trump your links because --- oh wait --- you don't have any.

Of course, full disclosure here, I'm working under a handicap. I'm limited to trivial things like, you know, "history" and "facts". You know, stuff found in "books". I don't have access to the Glenn Beck fantasy wet dreams crocked up to sell gold bars.

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

And do you have any clue in the world what that reason is? Actually I already posted on it right here. Let's see if you can figure it out. Open book test.

Fun fact: 1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted. Edward Jackson was already in office. Jack Walton had been removed from office the year before.

All this going on simultaneously. An old toast says, "may you live in interesting times". And we think we have lively campaigns...

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party.

except the democrat party

1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted

maybe like i stated before there certainly was a few crossovers just

as there are crossover progressives

but is undenialable that by far the kkk flocked to the 24 dnc convention

Again, no link whatsoever. Just disconnected bullshit aimlessly wandering in space.

No, Morley, Jackson and Means were not "Progressives". Not a one. The Progressives were mostly gone by then. Those guys were Klan and they were Republicans. In 1924 when the Klan was ascendant and all that was going on the Klan disrupted the Democratic convention to continue opposing the nomination chances of Oscar Underwood, a Senator from Alabama who was the leading voice denouncing the Klan and was getting damn vocal about it, noting the Klan had already cost him the Georgia primary race. Underwood, his platform plank and his nomination were successfully blocked. They also came to block the nomination of Al Smith (because he was a Catholic).

>> Underwood led the anti-Ku Klux Klan forces at the 1924 Democratic National Convention. He was a longtime opponent of the Klan. In 1924, when the Klan organized a parade in Birmingham during that year's Democratic National Convention, Underwood called it an effort "to intimidate me, the Alabama delegation and the democratic party....It will not succeed....I maintain that the organization is a national menace....It is either the Ku Klux Klan or the United States of America. Both cannot survive. Between the two, I choose my country."[9] << (-- Wiki: Oscar Underwood)​

The Klan succeeded in cockblocking enough votes (the convention went on over two weeks) that both Underwood and Smith were denied and dark horse John Davis got the spot. They came back four years later to try to block Smith again but failed in 1928 and Smith got the nomination.

That's what your "Klanbake" was about; outside agitation to intimidate a political process. Thanks for doing your fuckin' homework. Y'all are like the kid in high school who never bothers to read the material, then come the big test you wanna copy off somebody else's page who did the work. But when the paper you copy off of is Glenn Beck's Bullshit Manifestos (or whichever partisan hack demagogue, they all look alike), you're gonna get embarrassed.

Underwood btw was an opponent of Prohibition, which the Klan supported in its self-described role as moral police force, what we would call today a "Taliban", reflecting the social nature it always claimed for itself. Just as it went after "loose women", pulling one woman out of her home and whipping her in the street for "not going to church" and when her 15-year-old son came to defend her, whipped him too.

Because the Klan was a morals-based organization, not a political one. When it engaged in politics at all it supported or opposed Democrats or Republicans, whichever would suit their needs in that time and place, its universal quest being as they described it "100% Americanism", in effect a Christianist "Sharia Law".

Pop quiz: Who was the first President after Grant to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

Lyndon Johnson (1965)

So the question remains unmolested: why would a political party use its own organization to block its own candidates, remove its own candidates already holding office (Walton), work to get candidates from the opposition party elected (Means, Morley, Jackson et al), oppose its own constituency interest groups (blacks, women, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, unions) and then prosecute its own organization?

If you've got a political party, and one of your reliable constituencies is, for example, Jews -- do you then send your own outside affiliate terrorist organization to go out an lynch Jews? Diga me, on what planet does that make any sense at all?

You can't answer that, because to do so would confirm that your whole premise is bullshit.

links have been posted thousands of times stupid

 

[Pogo]

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

oh btw over the years hundreds upon hundreds of links of the KKK in relation to the democrats

which you seemingly always ignore

The next one will make a total of .... one.

No actually I'm full of links. Ten of them.
You know links --- those things you don't have?

Don't shovel shit, and you won't get buried. That's my advice.

yes but it represents a small portion of the KKK

the KKK by and far was a product of the democrat party

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party. Even if there were such an entity as a "democrat party" which has never existed. I demonstrated all this in my list of links. I'm afraid my links trump your links because --- oh wait --- you don't have any.

Of course, full disclosure here, I'm working under a handicap. I'm limited to trivial things like, you know, "history" and "facts". You know, stuff found in "books". I don't have access to the Glenn Beck fantasy wet dreams crocked up to sell gold bars.

the 1924 Democrat convention is known as the Klanbake for a reason

And do you have any clue in the world what that reason is? Actually I already posted on it right here. Let's see if you can figure it out. Open book test.

Fun fact: 1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted. Edward Jackson was already in office. Jack Walton had been removed from office the year before.

All this going on simultaneously. An old toast says, "may you live in interesting times". And we think we have lively campaigns...

None of the KKKs were "by and far" a product of ANY party.

except the democrat party

1924 was also the year both Clarence Morley and Rice Means were getting eleKKKted

maybe like i stated before there certainly was a few crossovers just

as there are crossover progressives

but is undenialable that by far the kkk flocked to the 24 dnc convention

Again, no link whatsoever. Just disconnected bullshit aimlessly wandering in space.

No, Morley, Jackson and Means were not "Progressives". Not a one. The Progressives were mostly gone by then. Those guys were Klan and they were Republicans. In 1924 when the Klan was ascendant and all that was going on the Klan disrupted the Democratic convention to continue opposing the nomination chances of Oscar Underwood, a Senator from Alabama who was the leading voice denouncing the Klan and was getting damn vocal about it, noting the Klan had already cost him the Georgia primary race. Underwood, his platform plank and his nomination were successfully blocked. They also came to block the nomination of Al Smith (because he was a Catholic).

>> Underwood led the anti-Ku Klux Klan forces at the 1924 Democratic National Convention. He was a longtime opponent of the Klan. In 1924, when the Klan organized a parade in Birmingham during that year's Democratic National Convention, Underwood called it an effort "to intimidate me, the Alabama delegation and the democratic party....It will not succeed....I maintain that the organization is a national menace....It is either the Ku Klux Klan or the United States of America. Both cannot survive. Between the two, I choose my country."[9] << (-- Wiki: Oscar Underwood)​

The Klan succeeded in cockblocking enough votes (the convention went on over two weeks) that both Underwood and Smith were denied and dark horse John Davis got the spot. They came back four years later to try to block Smith again but failed in 1928 and Smith got the nomination.

That's what your "Klanbake" was about; outside agitation to intimidate a political process. Thanks for doing your fuckin' homework. Y'all are like the kid in high school who never bothers to read the material, then come the big test you wanna copy off somebody else's page who did the work. But when the paper you copy off of is Glenn Beck's Bullshit Manifestos (or whichever partisan hack demagogue, they all look alike), you're gonna get embarrassed.

Underwood btw was an opponent of Prohibition, which the Klan supported in its self-described role as moral police force, what we would call today a "Taliban", reflecting the social nature it always claimed for itself. Just as it went after "loose women", pulling one woman out of her home and whipping her in the street for "not going to church" and when her 15-year-old son came to defend her, whipped him too.

Because the Klan was a morals-based organization, not a political one. When it engaged in politics at all it supported or opposed Democrats or Republicans, whichever would suit their needs in that time and place, its universal quest being as they described it "100% Americanism", in effect a Christianist "Sharia Law".

Pop quiz: Who was the first President after Grant to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

Lyndon Johnson (1965)

So the question remains unmolested: why would a political party use its own organization to block its own candidates, remove its own candidates already holding office (Walton), work to get candidates from the opposition party elected (Means, Morley, Jackson et al), oppose its own constituency interest groups (blacks, women, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, unions) and then prosecute its own organization?

If you've got a political party, and one of your reliable constituencies is, for example, Jews -- do you then send your own outside affiliate terrorist organization to go out an lynch Jews? Diga me, on what planet does that make any sense at all?

You can't answer that, because to do so would confirm that your whole premise is bullshit.

links have been posted thousands of times stupid

I well know -- since I'm the one who posted ALL of them. And they make the question unanswerable.
Thus are you dismissed.