The GOP's New Fake Racial History

[Dick Tuck]

I knew right away you were either lying or ignorant and I suspect you might be both.

LBJ stalled Ike Civil Rights legislation and wanted to strangle it to death but realized he could not do so for the long term so he passed a watered down version, then once he got JFK out of the way and became President he essentially passed the legislation Ike sent him 7 years prior.

And he still called Thurgood Marshall a ****** in 1967.

Get better heroes

Your defense of Haley Barbour's racist revisionism ought make you proud.

what difference does it make. I'm sure you are right proud of the racists on your side of the aisle.

Your sureness is a strawman is built on a totally false assumption. Unless of course, you're part of the Orwellian new right, that believes that anti-racism is racism.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

The paradigm shifts over time is pretty interesting. It seems that every political party, once entrenched, moves from a movement party to a machine party. Every so often, the ideologues start coming up with litmus tests. One thing that has been consistent is the conservative position of maintaining status quo. Party really meant squat in the 50s and 60s, as it was a time when both were essentially machine parties, with liberal and conservative wings. Johnson and Nixon essentially changed that, with Nixon co-opting on the hatred of Southern whites being forced to share schools and water fountains.

The bottom line still is that conservative whites, due almost exclusively to hatred of integration and civil rights, flocked to the GOP in droves, after the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed. I still think that Nixon, who was pretty much a liberal on social issues, got blind sided by the monster he created. Haley Barbour's attempt to revise that history is despicable.

You continue to maintain this even though I have shown that the south was solidly Democrat up until the 1990s. How do you explain your cognitive dissonance here?

 

[Ozmar]

Barry Goldwater was opposed to civil rights acts that would have made desegregation a reality. he supported an idea with no teeth and no hope of reality.

The Civil Rights Act wasn't necessary to stop segregation.

But it did stop segregation. Whether you think it was necessary or not is beside the point. It did (for the most part) what it was intended. Existing laws had no teeth.

Existing law was already on the side of the disenfranchised. The Feds simply wouldn't enforce it.

So you basically contradict yourself, because obviously the existing laws were not enough, otherwise the CRA wouldn't have been needed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

Do you know what year it is?

 

[daveman]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

The paradigm shifts over time is pretty interesting. It seems that every political party, once entrenched, moves from a movement party to a machine party. Every so often, the ideologues start coming up with litmus tests. One thing that has been consistent is the conservative position of maintaining status quo. Party really meant squat in the 50s and 60s, as it was a time when both were essentially machine parties, with liberal and conservative wings. Johnson and Nixon essentially changed that, with Nixon co-opting on the hatred of Southern whites being forced to share schools and water fountains.

The bottom line still is that conservative whites, due almost exclusively to hatred of integration and civil rights, flocked to the GOP in droves, after the 1964 Civil Rights act was passed. I still think that Nixon, who was pretty much a liberal on social issues, got blind sided by the monster he created. Haley Barbour's attempt to revise that history is despicable.

I believe you mean, "Haley Barbour's attempt to correct liberal-revised history is despicable."

 

[daveman]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

Do you know what year it is?

Yes. Do you know how that document belies the liberal fantasy that the Democratic Party has always been a champion of civil rights?

 

[Annie]

Barry Goldwater was opposed to civil rights acts that would have made desegregation a reality. he supported an idea with no teeth and no hope of reality.

The Civil Rights Act wasn't necessary to stop segregation.

But it did stop segregation. Whether you think it was necessary or not is beside the point. It did (for the most part) what it was intended. Existing laws had no teeth.

Existing law was already on the side of the disenfranchised. The Feds simply wouldn't enforce it.

So you basically contradict yourself, because obviously the existing laws were not enough, otherwise the CRA wouldn't have been needed.

You don't think there's segregation any longer? Could fool anyone driving through any big city or the suburbs. It's not 'absolute' and not done by redlining, but it's still there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rachel Maddow covered this last night, and demolished Haley Barbour. It was brilliant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

Do you know what year it is?

Yes. Do you know how that document belies the liberal fantasy that the Democratic Party has always been a champion of civil rights?

I'm a liberal. I don't have that fantasy. I've explained the reality of this to the ignorant dozens of times.

The Democratic party of the South pre-circa 1964 was the CONSERVATIVE wing of the Democratic party. That wing never supported civil rights/integration. In fact, they themselves formed a CONSERVATIVE coalition with the conservative wing of the Republican party.

You might be interested to know that EVERY Southern REPUBLICAN house member voted against the civil rights act in 1964.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

The Republican party is hardly the same party it was 50 years ago, let alone 150 years ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

The Republican party is hardly the same party it was 50 years ago, let alone 150 years ago.

Or 40 years ago. Which pretty much supports Haley Barbour's point. Thanks for pointing out this important fact!

 

[daveman]

Do you know what year it is?

Yes. Do you know how that document belies the liberal fantasy that the Democratic Party has always been a champion of civil rights?

I'm a liberal. I don't have that fantasy.

 

[daveman]

It's interesting to compare the party platforms over the years. The GOP has been consistently pro-civil rights since 1858.

From the Democratic Party platform:

1840, 1844, 1848
All efforts by abolitionists . . . to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . are
calculated to lead to the most alarming
and dangerous consequences and . . . have
an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people and endanger the
stability and permanency of the union.​

The Republican party is hardly the same party it was 50 years ago, let alone 150 years ago.

And your "proof" that the GOP opposes civil rights is...the lies leftists tell each other.

Good job!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Apparently the GOP feels the need to have its Southern members like Haley Barbour go out and spread the lie that it wasn't race that caused the Democrats in the South to go running full-speed to the Republican party. It was....some other reason.

Can you believe that tripe? Read it and weep.

The GOP's new fake racial history - War Room - Salon.com

*SMH*

Makes ya' think their Hoods are magical; that they have the ability to turn their owners into hard-core badasses.

Next thing, ya' know, ol' Haley's gonna say he's got no opinions on Asians.....'cause he's never met any. ​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Apparently the GOP feels the need to have its Southern members like Haley Barbour go out and spread the lie that it wasn't race that caused the Democrats in the South to go running full-speed to the Republican party. It was....some other reason.

Can you believe that tripe? Read it and weep.

The GOP's new fake racial history - War Room - Salon.com

*SMH*

Makes ya' think their Hoods are magical; that they have the ability to turn their owners into hard-core badasses.

Next thing, ya' know, ol' Haley's gonna say he's got no opinions on Asians.....'cause he's never met any. ​

Biden's met some Indians​

(I used stupid fonts so you could read it because you're an annoying asshole)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIT3jUrNTX0]YouTube - Biden Indian[/ame]

 

[Dick Tuck]

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

.....But, we can always rely on White-Trash to make-something-up.


​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

'Baggers are like that.....you know.....being-able to channel bigots/racists.....without (actually) becoming one, themselves.


​

 

[daveman]

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

Guess you missed the posts where I linked the party's platforms since their beginnings. You know, history-type stuff.

Good ol' Dick "If I ignore the unpleasant things, they don't exist!" Tuck.