Yeah, those Republicans and conservatives sure are racists, aren't they??

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Save your BS twisted logic and try to sell it to some impressionable 10-year-old who will actually buy it.

It isn't "twisted logic" to point out that the faction of the Democratic Party you're talking about left the party--physically walked out of the convention in 1948 over the party's civil rights platform and ran their own Presidential candidate against the Democrats. When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good. Strom Thurmod died a Republican.

Sure it's twisted logic. And, that you cite ONE individual from that period which ended up turning Republican? LOL! Weak. And, not only that, lets not forget he was a States' Rights DEMOCRAT before he was a Republican. And, lets not mention the fact that, ultimately, most of those who broke away from the Democratic party to form the States' Rights Democratic Party rejoined the Democrat party after the 1948 election.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles on this matter are quite contradictory. While one Wikipedia entry claims Strom Thurmond was in the States' Rights Democratic Party from 1948 to 1964 in an article about Strom Thurmond, another Wikipedia entry about Dixiecrats also says "The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election". How could Strom Thurmond have still supposedly been in the States' Rights Democratic Party until 1964 if the States' Rights Democratic Party supposedly dissolved in 1948? And, additionally, this Wikipedia entry, -- "after the 1948 election its [the States' Rights Democratic Party's] leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party" -- unless you can prove it inaccurate, disqualifies your claim that, "When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys(sic) of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good."

 

[Toronado3800]

Geezer, think about it, the oddball Wallace candidacy in 68 under his own party. Some like him (after he was shot if I recall?) had their minds changed on civil rightz and came back. Thise who did not claimed states rights for their reason for defecting and poof, they went someplace beacuse in only one election did they vote American Independant.

Many Democrats, I'm thinking if Byrd, magically had their minds changed on civil rights. Kinda funny but hey at least they started voting correctly on it..

The Republicans embraced the States Righters which was another oddball thing since Lincoln seemed a federal power type guy to me.

I need a more gentle summary....

How about, "After 34 years in which they only got the moderate military hero Eisenhower elected to the Presidency the Republicans were open to all new members. When many racists fled the Democrat party after its tumultous Kennedy/Johnson inspired civil rights break in the 60's those voters could not be turned away."

 

[Freewill]

Whaaaaat it's a joke!

That's why it is race baiting.

 

[Freewill]

Save your BS twisted logic and try to sell it to some impressionable 10-year-old who will actually buy it.

It isn't "twisted logic" to point out that the faction of the Democratic Party you're talking about left the party--physically walked out of the convention in 1948 over the party's civil rights platform and ran their own Presidential candidate against the Democrats. When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good. Strom Thurmod died a Republican.

Sure it's twisted logic. And, that you cite ONE individual from that period which ended up turning Republican? LOL! Weak. And, not only that, lets not forget he was a States' Rights DEMOCRAT before he was a Republican. And, lets not mention the fact that, ultimately, most of those who broke away from the Democratic party to form the States' Rights Democratic Party rejoined the Democrat party after the 1948 election.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles on this matter are quite contradictory. While one Wikipedia entry claims Strom Thurmond was in the States' Rights Democratic Party from 1948 to 1964 in an article about Strom Thurmond, another Wikipedia entry about Dixiecrats also says "The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election". How could Strom Thurmond have still supposedly been in the States' Rights Democratic Party until 1964 if the States' Rights Democratic Party supposedly dissolved in 1948? And, additionally, this Wikipedia entry, -- "after the 1948 election its [the States' Rights Democratic Party's] leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party" -- unless you can prove it inaccurate, disqualifies your claim that, "When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys(sic) of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good."

Quite right. There was NO reason for any racist to leave the Democrat party for the Republican party. The Republican party was formed to end slavery and supported EVERY civil rights act from the reformation, EVERY ONE. Now we are subjected to the party of slavery's redefining history. LBJ got a civil rights act passed but it was far from the only one ever passed. He did it for one reason and one reason only, to garner black votes and I must admit it worked very well. The lies and propaganda that spewed forth from the DNC were very effective. But what I really do not understand to this day is how blacks can belong to the democrat party. It is like a Jew belonging to the Nazi party. Not making any comparison of the Nazi to the Democrat party just seems strange they would belong to a party with such a sorted past in the treatment of the black man.

 

[Toronado3800]

It isn't "twisted logic" to point out that the faction of the Democratic Party you're talking about left the party--physically walked out of the convention in 1948 over the party's civil rights platform and ran their own Presidential candidate against the Democrats. When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good. Strom Thurmod died a Republican.

Sure it's twisted logic. And, that you cite ONE individual from that period which ended up turning Republican? LOL! Weak. And, not only that, lets not forget he was a States' Rights DEMOCRAT before he was a Republican. And, lets not mention the fact that, ultimately, most of those who broke away from the Democratic party to form the States' Rights Democratic Party rejoined the Democrat party after the 1948 election.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles on this matter are quite contradictory. While one Wikipedia entry claims Strom Thurmond was in the States' Rights Democratic Party from 1948 to 1964 in an article about Strom Thurmond, another Wikipedia entry about Dixiecrats also says "The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election". How could Strom Thurmond have still supposedly been in the States' Rights Democratic Party until 1964 if the States' Rights Democratic Party supposedly dissolved in 1948? And, additionally, this Wikipedia entry, -- "after the 1948 election its [the States' Rights Democratic Party's] leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party" -- unless you can prove it inaccurate, disqualifies your claim that, "When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys(sic) of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good."

Quite right. There was NO reason for any racist to leave the Democrat party for the Republican party. The Republican party was formed to end slavery and supported EVERY civil rights act from the reformation, EVERY ONE. Now we are subjected to the party of slavery's redefining history. LBJ got a civil rights act passed but it was far from the only one ever passed. He did it for one reason and one reason only, to garner black votes and I must admit it worked very well. The lies and propaganda that spewed forth from the DNC were very effective. But what I really do not understand to this day is how black can belong to the democrat party. It is like a Jew belonging to the Nazi party. Not making any comparison of the Nazi to the Democrat party just seems strange they would belong to a party with such a sorted past in the treatment of the black man.

Remember the 68 election when the segregationists DID leave the Democratic party and actually won a few states. It happened.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In the state of Wyoming, a very white and conservative state, Lynn Hutchings who ran for District 42's House seat won, and she won HUGE, beating Dumbocrap, Gary Datus by 72% to 18%. Lynn Hutchings is black, a 22 year military veteran, and volunteer fire fighter. Lynn made it very clear to voters, she is very conservative, and is very proud of it. There is no mistaking where she stands on an issue. She has in the past held Bill or Rights parties and Constiution parties, long before she ever thought of running for office, and will continue to host these kinds of parties. Another party begins as Wyoming gets a truly great and patriotic American in an elected position. Hopefully her next step will be U.S. House and higher!!!

Let's all stand up and give Lynn a big standing ovation for refusing to comprimise her morals and values !! And refusing to be enslaved by the Democrat plantation.





Great job Lynn, and may this be just the beginning of a long a great political career for you!!!


On the link, you will need to scroll down to District #42


Wyoming 2012 General Election Results

Black conservatives are the most hated group in America...This women is a patriot

Define "patriot".

 

[Freewill]

Sure it's twisted logic. And, that you cite ONE individual from that period which ended up turning Republican? LOL! Weak. And, not only that, lets not forget he was a States' Rights DEMOCRAT before he was a Republican. And, lets not mention the fact that, ultimately, most of those who broke away from the Democratic party to form the States' Rights Democratic Party rejoined the Democrat party after the 1948 election.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles on this matter are quite contradictory. While one Wikipedia entry claims Strom Thurmond was in the States' Rights Democratic Party from 1948 to 1964 in an article about Strom Thurmond, another Wikipedia entry about Dixiecrats also says "The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election". How could Strom Thurmond have still supposedly been in the States' Rights Democratic Party until 1964 if the States' Rights Democratic Party supposedly dissolved in 1948? And, additionally, this Wikipedia entry, -- "after the 1948 election its [the States' Rights Democratic Party's] leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party" -- unless you can prove it inaccurate, disqualifies your claim that, "When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys(sic) of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good."

Quite right. There was NO reason for any racist to leave the Democrat party for the Republican party. The Republican party was formed to end slavery and supported EVERY civil rights act from the reformation, EVERY ONE. Now we are subjected to the party of slavery's redefining history. LBJ got a civil rights act passed but it was far from the only one ever passed. He did it for one reason and one reason only, to garner black votes and I must admit it worked very well. The lies and propaganda that spewed forth from the DNC were very effective. But what I really do not understand to this day is how black can belong to the democrat party. It is like a Jew belonging to the Nazi party. Not making any comparison of the Nazi to the Democrat party just seems strange they would belong to a party with such a sorted past in the treatment of the black man.

Remember the 68 election when the segregationists DID leave the Democratic party and actually won a few states. It happened.

So much for Nixon's southern strategy.

 

[squeeze berry]

In the state of Wyoming, a very white and conservative state, Lynn Hutchings who ran for District 42's House seat won, and she won HUGE, beating Dumbocrap, Gary Datus by 72% to 18%. Lynn Hutchings is black, a 22 year military veteran, and volunteer fire fighter. Lynn made it very clear to voters, she is very conservative, and is very proud of it. There is no mistaking where she stands on an issue. She has in the past held Bill or Rights parties and Constiution parties, long before she ever thought of running for office, and will continue to host these kinds of parties. Another party begins as Wyoming gets a truly great and patriotic American in an elected position. Hopefully her next step will be U.S. House and higher!!!

Let's all stand up and give Lynn a big standing ovation for refusing to comprimise her morals and values !! And refusing to be enslaved by the Democrat plantation.





Great job Lynn, and may this be just the beginning of a long a great political career for you!!!


On the link, you will need to scroll down to District #42


Wyoming 2012 General Election Results

She should go around telling blacks to liberate themselves from the Democrat plantation, it's sure to gain votes for the Republican party.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is very close to "one of my best friends is black!" Just sayin...

Race baited alert!

Yep

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is very close to "one of my best friends is black!" Just sayin...

It's racist of you too think a person can't support someone other than because of their race.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Geezer, think about it, the oddball Wallace candidacy in 68 under his own party. Some like him (after he was shot if I recall?) had their minds changed on civil rightz and came back. Thise who did not claimed states rights for their reason for defecting and poof, they went someplace beacuse in only one election did they vote American Independant.

Many Democrats, I'm thinking if Byrd, magically had their minds changed on civil rights. Kinda funny but hey at least they started voting correctly on it..

The Republicans embraced the States Righters which was another oddball thing since Lincoln seemed a federal power type guy to me.

I need a more gentle summary....

How about, "After 34 years in which they only got the moderate military hero Eisenhower elected to the Presidency the Republicans were open to all new members. When many racists fled the Democrat party after its tumultous Kennedy/Johnson inspired civil rights break in the 60's those voters could not be turned away."

Sorry, again, and I don't know how many times I need to say it, show me proof any racist Democrats somehow joined the Republican party in any large measure. Again, and I don't know how many times I need to say this as well, the States' Rights Democratic Party only lasted one election cycle and most of those involved with it rejoined the Democrat party. Why would the racist Democrats suddenly join the Republican party when it wasn't the Republican party advocating racism but, instead, was the Democrat party? This makes absolutely no sense. If they did join the Republican party? Then, I could only presume they ditched their racist view and joined the party which was against racism. Otherwise, their party of choice would have been the Democrat party. See, the fact is, I highly doubt you can show any legitimate proof that, somehow, racist Democrats joined the Republican party at any time after the States' Rights Democratic party dissolved in 1948 nor, after the 1968 Democrat primaries. It's simply a bunch of made-up BS and revisionist history.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Sure it's twisted logic. And, that you cite ONE individual from that period which ended up turning Republican? LOL! Weak. And, not only that, lets not forget he was a States' Rights DEMOCRAT before he was a Republican. And, lets not mention the fact that, ultimately, most of those who broke away from the Democratic party to form the States' Rights Democratic Party rejoined the Democrat party after the 1948 election.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles on this matter are quite contradictory. While one Wikipedia entry claims Strom Thurmond was in the States' Rights Democratic Party from 1948 to 1964 in an article about Strom Thurmond, another Wikipedia entry about Dixiecrats also says "The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election". How could Strom Thurmond have still supposedly been in the States' Rights Democratic Party until 1964 if the States' Rights Democratic Party supposedly dissolved in 1948? And, additionally, this Wikipedia entry, -- "after the 1948 election its [the States' Rights Democratic Party's] leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party" -- unless you can prove it inaccurate, disqualifies your claim that, "When the civil rights agenda of the Humphreys(sic) of the party gained steam, many of them left the party for good."

Quite right. There was NO reason for any racist to leave the Democrat party for the Republican party. The Republican party was formed to end slavery and supported EVERY civil rights act from the reformation, EVERY ONE. Now we are subjected to the party of slavery's redefining history. LBJ got a civil rights act passed but it was far from the only one ever passed. He did it for one reason and one reason only, to garner black votes and I must admit it worked very well. The lies and propaganda that spewed forth from the DNC were very effective. But what I really do not understand to this day is how black can belong to the democrat party. It is like a Jew belonging to the Nazi party. Not making any comparison of the Nazi to the Democrat party just seems strange they would belong to a party with such a sorted past in the treatment of the black man.

Remember the 68 election when the segregationists DID leave the Democratic party and actually won a few states. It happened.

What about it? So a few Democrat segregationists left the Democrat party in the '68 election. Got proof they joined the Republican party? No...you don't. And, got any proof that they didn't rejoin the Democrat party in the next election? No...you don't. You're just simply making crap up and running with it, hoping folks will bite.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Quite right. There was NO reason for any racist to leave the Democrat party for the Republican party. The Republican party was formed to end slavery and supported EVERY civil rights act from the reformation, EVERY ONE. Now we are subjected to the party of slavery's redefining history. LBJ got a civil rights act passed but it was far from the only one ever passed. He did it for one reason and one reason only, to garner black votes and I must admit it worked very well. The lies and propaganda that spewed forth from the DNC were very effective. But what I really do not understand to this day is how black can belong to the democrat party. It is like a Jew belonging to the Nazi party. Not making any comparison of the Nazi to the Democrat party just seems strange they would belong to a party with such a sorted past in the treatment of the black man.

Remember the 68 election when the segregationists DID leave the Democratic party and actually won a few states. It happened.

So much for Nixon's southern strategy.

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed dramatically in 150 years, but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democrat Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at that time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for nearly a century.

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the U.S. military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated mainly by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for the racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins [and guilt] of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. At the same time, they started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo [and distortion], falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LJB's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

[Washington, D.C.,] is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the [D.C.] public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in [D.C.], effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther Kind's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

 

[beagle9]

In the state of Wyoming, a very white and conservative state, Lynn Hutchings who ran for District 42's House seat won, and she won HUGE, beating Dumbocrap, Gary Datus by 72% to 18%. Lynn Hutchings is black, a 22 year military veteran, and volunteer fire fighter. Lynn made it very clear to voters, she is very conservative, and is very proud of it. There is no mistaking where she stands on an issue. She has in the past held Bill or Rights parties and Constiution parties, long before she ever thought of running for office, and will continue to host these kinds of parties. Another party begins as Wyoming gets a truly great and patriotic American in an elected position. Hopefully her next step will be U.S. House and higher!!!

Let's all stand up and give Lynn a big standing ovation for refusing to comprimise her morals and values !! And refusing to be enslaved by the Democrat plantation.





Great job Lynn, and may this be just the beginning of a long a great political career for you!!!


On the link, you will need to scroll down to District #42


Wyoming 2012 General Election Results

Black conservatives are the most hated group in America...This women is a patriot

Define "patriot".

A "Patriot" is an American who is judged not upon the color of their skin, but judged upon the content of their character, but of course this goes against the democrats evilness in life, and that is why they don't promote this sort of thing, but would rather stick with the color of ones skin instead.. Anymore questions ?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Black conservatives are the most hated group in America...This women is a patriot

Define "patriot".

A "Patriot" is an American who is judged not upon the color of their skin, but judged upon the content of their character, but of course this goes against the democrats evilness in life, and that is why they don't promote this sort of thing, but would rather stick with the color of ones skin instead.. Anymore questions ?

And this is no more evident than in Obama himself. Obama is of mixed race but, due to the color of his skin, multitudes of folks (mostly Democrats and blacks) consider him black or, to be more politically correct, African-American. So, it's simply due to the color of his skin, that he's black, forgetting the fact that he's of mixed race. And, people want to talk about demographics? Really, what IS the demographics today? When someone is asked in a Census, for instance, what their race is, do they answer the question based on their skin color? Or, do they answer the question based on the ancestral heritage of their mother and father? Are the demographics really accurate considering the large and ever increasing numbers of mixed race people? And, how many people are basing their own race simply on the color of their skin? If my father were black, my mother's side of the family all came from Denmark. So, if I said I were black because my skin was black, would that really be an accurate answer?

 

[Lakhota]

Yeah, those Republicans and conservatives sure are racists, aren't they??

Yes, they are - except they hide it when an Uncle Tom teabagger joins their ranks. Funny...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, those Republicans and conservatives sure are racists, aren't they??

Yes, they are - except they hide it when an Uncle Tom teabagger joins their ranks. Funny...

You don't seem to have a problem showing your racism.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, those Republicans and conservatives sure are racists, aren't they??

Yes, they are - except they hide it when an Uncle Tom teabagger joins their ranks. Funny...

Oh, look, more racism from the left that lefties will ignore.

 

[Toronado3800]

" The opposition vote was split successfully, with 80% of*George Wallace*supporters voting for Nixon rather than*George McGovern, unlike Wallace himself.[18]"
Silent majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe my area bars are the only ones where the Missoura good ol boy racists are largely Republicans also.

I do not disagree at all with the Republican party's pre 1968 history you keep quoting.

I do disagree with that "welfare is used to create black dependency" rhetoric. Although interestingly enough I supoort a more CCC type welfare system but thats another post.

Anyways, arent the Democrats the "soft on immigration" giving the world to brownies?

 

[beagle9]

Yeah, those Republicans and conservatives sure are racists, aren't they??

Yes, they are - except they hide it when an Uncle Tom teabagger joins their ranks. Funny...

You are a racist, and that is fact now by your comments in which you make.