Mr. Friscus
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2020
- 7,747
- 8,225
- 2,138
Charlottesville was pretty tame compared to most BLM riots.
Charlottesville To Remove confederate Statues That Helped Spark Deadly Rally
- Thread starter Dana7360
- Start date
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
A third grade moron could come up with a better insult than that.Being called a sucker by a Trump cultist is like being called a carnivore by a tiger.So-called historians are nothing more than propagandists and conspiricy theorists. The so-called "Southern Strategy" is a conspiricy theory.No, actually only crazy conspiracy theorists that like to be debunked by every historian...well, in history, think it's "bullshit". 99.9% of historians recognize it as a fact. Heck, Republicans apologized for it.We all know it's bullshit. Racist scum Democrats just wanted an excuse to accuse Republicans of being racists.Carters win does not disprove the Southern strategy. It took time for white southerners to switch over from the Democratic Party to the republican party. That switch is now complete.You base your entire argument on one man Carter?I never said the secret recordings that proved what everyone thought about Nixon's racism had anything to do with the Southern Strategy. They are two separate things that, although both deal with Nixon's racism, are unrelated.I provided you plenty. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it.I have already provided proof that the Southern strategy was a real thing. ....No, that isn’t what I said. I simply said we now know that he absolutely was a racist. Even if they were prognosticating back then, they were right.
New report highlights comments Richard Nixon made in favor of a debunked racist theory
Newly unearthed recordings show former President Richard Nixon mentioned racist language in conversations with his close associates.www.businessinsider.com
No wonder you’re such a fan…
So, to support your idea of Nixon supposedly pandering to southern wacists, you cite secret recordings that only came out today, 50 years later?
Wow. That's..... breath takingly stupid. Or, is it literally insane?
Nixon supported the bi-partisan consensus on civil rights, just like Johnson before him and Ford after him.
The Southern Strategy is based on the idea that Nixon publicly pandered to southern wacists, so that they would have a reason to vote for him and the gop.
Secret recordings that didn't come out till decades after Nixon and hte majority of the voters were dead, would not be a reason for any voters to do anything.
You can't support the Southern Strategy, because it's not true.
That is you lying. You've provided ZERO evidence to support your position.
The reality is that Nixon shared the bi-partisan consensus in favor of civil rights for blacks that both parties supported during the time of his presidency.
His policies proved that. And by proved, I mean, actually proved it, by putting his money where his mouth was, by actual policy, implemented and enforced.
You want to ignore that and focus on secret recordings that were not even public at the time as though.... what? NOTHING.
Secret recordings that were not released until decades after Nixon was dead, and even more decades after his elections, do not support the southern strategy conspiracy theory.
To support the theory's claims, you have to show that he pandered for wacist votes, successfully. Some major policies, that helped keep the South segregated or gave special rights to whites over blacks.
That you think a secret recording that no one knew about would convince voters, who never heard it, to vote for Nixon, makes no sense.
The Southern Strategy was real. Just ask Republicans.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."...
Nice gish galloping. I will deal with your lead piece, show that it is weak and we can dismiss the rest as ever weaker.
So, the Southern Strategy puts forth the claim that REpublican candidates, after the dems joined the growing national consensus on civil rights for blacks, that the republican candidates somehow "pandered" to the seething pit of wacists that was the South, to flip the region, a dozen states, forever.
Generally liberals used to claim that they pushed racist policies to get southern votes, but that is easily debunked by looking at the policies. Liberals still push that narrative, in settings where no one can question them, but more experienced lefties, when open to questions have dropped the claim of policies.
Which leaves the next line of defense, ie secret code words. This one... is really pathetic. I give seawytch credit for not even trying that one.
She has tried the third line of defense, ie citing other people that say the same thing. Which.... just wow. lol.
NOw, lets look at the leading piece of "Evidence" in her use of the Gish Gallop Fallacy.
The elimination of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee.
So, Seawytch, is claiming that in the mid 60s, in an attempt to pander to southern wacist, President Nixon, eliminated an internal republican party sub-committee....
That is you leading piece of evidence to support the Southern Strategy?
IMO, that is not the type of thing that would get a wacist, to switch his vote from one party to the other. Indeed, I can't believe that the vast majority of southern voters ever heard of that sub-committee or that it was eliminated.
And btw, just for historical context, years AFTER the shocking disbanding of that important committee, this happened.
View attachment 513009
So, even though that GOP sub committee might have been really, really important, it didn't seem to really cement the South as republican, the way that conspiracy theorists claim.
Do you want to argue that Jimmy Carter was a wacist hold over, from the bad old days and the southern voters knew it, while the northern dem voters didn't?what did I tell you..."nuh uh".
The switch of the white southerner from the Democratic party to the Republican party was not instantaneous, which is why Carter was still able to win the south. Carter looked like them, talked like them and was Baptist like them. Nixon played a part in Carter's win as well. His opponent had pardoned Tricky Dick and folks were still pissed at what Nixon had done.
He lost reelection in no small part because those white southerners realized he wasn't like them. (And Reagan told them about scary black people on welfare driving Cadillacs).
So, Carter won despite being strong on civil rights just because he was a southern (and nixon)?
I agree.
But, that really undermines the idea that RACE is the defining issue of southern politics. At least past the mid 60s.
Carter lost, because his weak ass foreign policy was inviting everyone to walk all over US. Hell, he knew it. He was completely changing course, running guns to Afghanistan and building up the military.
Race played no significant role. Because it was moot. BOTH sides were committed to civil rights for blacks and the wacists voters knew it.
Give up
Dude. It's one limited example, of one election that shows the claims of the Southern Strategy are just not true.
You can actually do the same thing with EVERY Presidential election.
In EVERY Presidential Election since the early 60s, BOTH candidates supported civil rights for blacks and in both partiers the white members of their party, north and south, still voted for them, despite that.
Your claim that the Southern strategy is a myth has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. You’re nothing but a joke now.
Dims are the biggest group of suckers on the planet.
You couldn't. 
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
I knew you would accuse him of something nefarious.It was self serving. He wanted the profits gained from the increased value of his own slaves. He never freed his own slaves even in death. He was a fucking hypocrite. Gimme a fucking break.
We're not giving up individual liberty or property rights, commie. I will kill all of you before that happens.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,371
- 2,180
I have, many times
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,371
- 2,180
Grant and Sherman murdered their fellow Americans. Lee only defended Virginia.
He didn't hange because there was nothing they could hang him for. Those Northern carpet bagger politicians knew they couldn't get a jury to convict on the grounds of treason.
- Mar 31, 2009
- 106,256
- 89,443
- 3,605
Lee never deserted, he resigned his commission and he freed his father in law's slaves
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Now, Sassy. Don't get in the way of a good bullshit Marxist narrative used to camouflage the real target, Thomas Jefferson.
These assholes hate liberty. They HATE everything Jefferson did or stood for. They love being subjects.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,376
- 12,952
- 2,400
Yes he resigned, but for the purpose of joining the other side, that is in my view desertion. He was a racist to the day he died, he never freed his slaves, and never changed his dismissive views of black people.
There is no documented evidence that he freed the slaves and he was always a supporter of slavery even when the war ended:
History Net,
".....And what about Lee’s own slaves? He inherited 10 or 12 from his mother, but it is difficult to determine whether he freed any of them. Before the Mexican War he wrote a will that would have liberated one family; however, since he was not killed, those provisions never went into effect. There is no evidence of Lee’s slaves being emancipated—no courthouse records, no mention of it in his massive letter books. One of his sons later said that he had freed all his slaves before the war, but had taken no legal action so they would not have to move out of Virginia. That seems questionable, however. A freed African American really could not exist in Virginia without papers; the law would put him right back into slavery.
In fact, we have an example of a freed couple without documents being thrown into jail in 1853 by Lee’s father-in-law, a justice of the peace. We also know that Lee was aware of the need to provide free papers, since he went to considerable trouble to get proper documents for the Custis slaves who were freed during the Civil War. In any case, his own papers show that he owned slaves well into the 1850s and considered buying another in 1860. He also used his wife’s slaves as personal servants throughout the Civil War.
Lee’s letters tell us much about his racial attitudes. He seemed to dislike the bondsmen’s presence and generally avoided dealing with them. (“Do not trouble yourself about them, as they are not worth it,” he counseled his wife.) He had a low opinion of blacks as workers and complained continually about their habits. (“It would be accidental to fall in with a good one,” he ultimately concluded.) He found the constant need to provide for the slaves burdensome, and as a result frequently rented them out.
As late as 1865 he was still asserting that “the relation of master and slave…is the best that can exist between the white & black races.” He had equally dismissive views of other groups who threatened white aspirations, including Mexicans and American Indians, whom he several times described as “hideous” and whom he believed to be culturally inferior. It is important to note that these are not random comments, written on a bad day, but a constant pattern in Lee’s writing."
bolding mine
=====
Until he left the Union he never considered freeing the slaves who lived in abject squalor under him, have you been there seen the photos, I did, the building they lived in were not wind tight and bad roofing.
The grounds of Arlington house was occupied within days after Lee's departure.
Seriously. WTF is wrong with you?
I asked for your best example and you give me a fucking Gish Galloping list?
ONe more fucking time. You think Carter didn't prove nothing, THAN GIVE ME YOUR FUCKING BEST EXAMPLE.
You don't have ONE GOOD EXAMPLE? The Southern Strategy is the HUGE POWERFUL FORCE, but so subtle that you CAN'T GIVE ONE GOOD EXAMPLE?
Starting to sound like complete bullshit, doesn't it?
GIVE ME YOUR BEST SHOT.
I give an example, she poo-poos it. So I ask for her BEST example and she gives me a fucking list.
WTF. Talking to these pinheads is like trying to pin down the fog. They are completely dishonest assholes.
No, actually only crazy conspiracy theorists that like to be debunked by every historian...well, in history, think it's "bullshit". 99.9% of historians recognize it as a fact. Heck, Republicans apologized for it.We all know it's bullshit. Racist scum Democrats just wanted an excuse to accuse Republicans of being racists.Carters win does not disprove the Southern strategy. It took time for white southerners to switch over from the Democratic Party to the republican party. That switch is now complete.You base your entire argument on one man Carter?I never said the secret recordings that proved what everyone thought about Nixon's racism had anything to do with the Southern Strategy. They are two separate things that, although both deal with Nixon's racism, are unrelated.I provided you plenty. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it.I have already provided proof that the Southern strategy was a real thing. ....No, that isn’t what I said. I simply said we now know that he absolutely was a racist. Even if they were prognosticating back then, they were right.New report highlights comments Richard Nixon made in favor of a debunked racist theory
Newly unearthed recordings show former President Richard Nixon mentioned racist language in conversations with his close associates.
No wonder you’re such a fan…
So, to support your idea of Nixon supposedly pandering to southern wacists, you cite secret recordings that only came out today, 50 years later?
Wow. That's..... breath takingly stupid. Or, is it literally insane?
Nixon supported the bi-partisan consensus on civil rights, just like Johnson before him and Ford after him.
The Southern Strategy is based on the idea that Nixon publicly pandered to southern wacists, so that they would have a reason to vote for him and the gop.
Secret recordings that didn't come out till decades after Nixon and hte majority of the voters were dead, would not be a reason for any voters to do anything.
You can't support the Southern Strategy, because it's not true.
That is you lying. You've provided ZERO evidence to support your position.
The reality is that Nixon shared the bi-partisan consensus in favor of civil rights for blacks that both parties supported during the time of his presidency.
His policies proved that. And by proved, I mean, actually proved it, by putting his money where his mouth was, by actual policy, implemented and enforced.
You want to ignore that and focus on secret recordings that were not even public at the time as though.... what? NOTHING.
Secret recordings that were not released until decades after Nixon was dead, and even more decades after his elections, do not support the southern strategy conspiracy theory.
To support the theory's claims, you have to show that he pandered for wacist votes, successfully. Some major policies, that helped keep the South segregated or gave special rights to whites over blacks.
That you think a secret recording that no one knew about would convince voters, who never heard it, to vote for Nixon, makes no sense.
The Southern Strategy was real. Just ask Republicans.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."...
Nice gish galloping. I will deal with your lead piece, show that it is weak and we can dismiss the rest as ever weaker.
So, the Southern Strategy puts forth the claim that REpublican candidates, after the dems joined the growing national consensus on civil rights for blacks, that the republican candidates somehow "pandered" to the seething pit of wacists that was the South, to flip the region, a dozen states, forever.
Generally liberals used to claim that they pushed racist policies to get southern votes, but that is easily debunked by looking at the policies. Liberals still push that narrative, in settings where no one can question them, but more experienced lefties, when open to questions have dropped the claim of policies.
Which leaves the next line of defense, ie secret code words. This one... is really pathetic. I give seawytch credit for not even trying that one.
She has tried the third line of defense, ie citing other people that say the same thing. Which.... just wow. lol.
NOw, lets look at the leading piece of "Evidence" in her use of the Gish Gallop Fallacy.
The elimination of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee.
So, Seawytch, is claiming that in the mid 60s, in an attempt to pander to southern wacist, President Nixon, eliminated an internal republican party sub-committee....
That is you leading piece of evidence to support the Southern Strategy?
IMO, that is not the type of thing that would get a wacist, to switch his vote from one party to the other. Indeed, I can't believe that the vast majority of southern voters ever heard of that sub-committee or that it was eliminated.
And btw, just for historical context, years AFTER the shocking disbanding of that important committee, this happened.
View attachment 513009
So, even though that GOP sub committee might have been really, really important, it didn't seem to really cement the South as republican, the way that conspiracy theorists claim.
Do you want to argue that Jimmy Carter was a wacist hold over, from the bad old days and the southern voters knew it, while the northern dem voters didn't?
The switch of the white southerner from the Democratic party to the Republican party was not instantaneous, which is why Carter was still able to win the south. Carter looked like them, talked like them and was Baptist like them. Nixon played a part in Carter's win as well. His opponent had pardoned Tricky Dick and folks were still pissed at what Nixon had done.
He lost reelection in no small part because those white southerners realized he wasn't like them. (And Reagan told them about scary black people on welfare driving Cadillacs).
So, Carter won despite being strong on civil rights just because he was a southern (and nixon)?
I agree.
But, that really undermines the idea that RACE is the defining issue of southern politics. At least past the mid 60s.
Carter lost, because his weak ass foreign policy was inviting everyone to walk all over US. Hell, he knew it. He was completely changing course, running guns to Afghanistan and building up the military.
Race played no significant role. Because it was moot. BOTH sides were committed to civil rights for blacks and the wacists voters knew it.
Give up
Dude. It's one limited example, of one election that shows the claims of the Southern Strategy are just not true.
You can actually do the same thing with EVERY Presidential election.
In EVERY Presidential Election since the early 60s, BOTH candidates supported civil rights for blacks and in both partiers the white members of their party, north and south, still voted for them, despite that.
Your claim that the Southern strategy is a myth has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. You’re nothing but a joke now.
And again, as "evidence" you present other people saying it exists.
NOTHING, supporting the primary claim, ie that the GOP campaigned for wacist votes in the South.
HOW THE FUCK DID THEY SUPPOSEDLY GET WACISTS TO VOTE FOR THEM? DID THEY FUCKING TRAVEL IN TIME, GET THE FUTURE STATEMENTS, BRING THEM BACK AND SHOW THEM TO WACIST VOTERS?
COME TEH FUCK ON. YOU LOOK RIDICULOUS. GIVE IT UP. YOU STONEWALLING WACE BAITING SPAM BOT.
Being called a sucker by a Trump cultist is like being called a carnivore by a tiger.So-called historians are nothing more than propagandists and conspiricy theorists. The so-called "Southern Strategy" is a conspiricy theory.No, actually only crazy conspiracy theorists that like to be debunked by every historian...well, in history, think it's "bullshit". 99.9% of historians recognize it as a fact. Heck, Republicans apologized for it.We all know it's bullshit. Racist scum Democrats just wanted an excuse to accuse Republicans of being racists.Carters win does not disprove the Southern strategy. It took time for white southerners to switch over from the Democratic Party to the republican party. That switch is now complete.You base your entire argument on one man Carter?I never said the secret recordings that proved what everyone thought about Nixon's racism had anything to do with the Southern Strategy. They are two separate things that, although both deal with Nixon's racism, are unrelated.I provided you plenty. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it.I have already provided proof that the Southern strategy was a real thing. ....No, that isn’t what I said. I simply said we now know that he absolutely was a racist. Even if they were prognosticating back then, they were right.New report highlights comments Richard Nixon made in favor of a debunked racist theory
Newly unearthed recordings show former President Richard Nixon mentioned racist language in conversations with his close associates.
No wonder you’re such a fan…
So, to support your idea of Nixon supposedly pandering to southern wacists, you cite secret recordings that only came out today, 50 years later?
Wow. That's..... breath takingly stupid. Or, is it literally insane?
Nixon supported the bi-partisan consensus on civil rights, just like Johnson before him and Ford after him.
The Southern Strategy is based on the idea that Nixon publicly pandered to southern wacists, so that they would have a reason to vote for him and the gop.
Secret recordings that didn't come out till decades after Nixon and hte majority of the voters were dead, would not be a reason for any voters to do anything.
You can't support the Southern Strategy, because it's not true.
That is you lying. You've provided ZERO evidence to support your position.
The reality is that Nixon shared the bi-partisan consensus in favor of civil rights for blacks that both parties supported during the time of his presidency.
His policies proved that. And by proved, I mean, actually proved it, by putting his money where his mouth was, by actual policy, implemented and enforced.
You want to ignore that and focus on secret recordings that were not even public at the time as though.... what? NOTHING.
Secret recordings that were not released until decades after Nixon was dead, and even more decades after his elections, do not support the southern strategy conspiracy theory.
To support the theory's claims, you have to show that he pandered for wacist votes, successfully. Some major policies, that helped keep the South segregated or gave special rights to whites over blacks.
That you think a secret recording that no one knew about would convince voters, who never heard it, to vote for Nixon, makes no sense.
The Southern Strategy was real. Just ask Republicans.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."...
Nice gish galloping. I will deal with your lead piece, show that it is weak and we can dismiss the rest as ever weaker.
So, the Southern Strategy puts forth the claim that REpublican candidates, after the dems joined the growing national consensus on civil rights for blacks, that the republican candidates somehow "pandered" to the seething pit of wacists that was the South, to flip the region, a dozen states, forever.
Generally liberals used to claim that they pushed racist policies to get southern votes, but that is easily debunked by looking at the policies. Liberals still push that narrative, in settings where no one can question them, but more experienced lefties, when open to questions have dropped the claim of policies.
Which leaves the next line of defense, ie secret code words. This one... is really pathetic. I give seawytch credit for not even trying that one.
She has tried the third line of defense, ie citing other people that say the same thing. Which.... just wow. lol.
NOw, lets look at the leading piece of "Evidence" in her use of the Gish Gallop Fallacy.
The elimination of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee.
So, Seawytch, is claiming that in the mid 60s, in an attempt to pander to southern wacist, President Nixon, eliminated an internal republican party sub-committee....
That is you leading piece of evidence to support the Southern Strategy?
IMO, that is not the type of thing that would get a wacist, to switch his vote from one party to the other. Indeed, I can't believe that the vast majority of southern voters ever heard of that sub-committee or that it was eliminated.
And btw, just for historical context, years AFTER the shocking disbanding of that important committee, this happened.
View attachment 513009
So, even though that GOP sub committee might have been really, really important, it didn't seem to really cement the South as republican, the way that conspiracy theorists claim.
Do you want to argue that Jimmy Carter was a wacist hold over, from the bad old days and the southern voters knew it, while the northern dem voters didn't?
The switch of the white southerner from the Democratic party to the Republican party was not instantaneous, which is why Carter was still able to win the south. Carter looked like them, talked like them and was Baptist like them. Nixon played a part in Carter's win as well. His opponent had pardoned Tricky Dick and folks were still pissed at what Nixon had done.
He lost reelection in no small part because those white southerners realized he wasn't like them. (And Reagan told them about scary black people on welfare driving Cadillacs).
So, Carter won despite being strong on civil rights just because he was a southern (and nixon)?
I agree.
But, that really undermines the idea that RACE is the defining issue of southern politics. At least past the mid 60s.
Carter lost, because his weak ass foreign policy was inviting everyone to walk all over US. Hell, he knew it. He was completely changing course, running guns to Afghanistan and building up the military.
Race played no significant role. Because it was moot. BOTH sides were committed to civil rights for blacks and the wacists voters knew it.
Give up
Dude. It's one limited example, of one election that shows the claims of the Southern Strategy are just not true.
You can actually do the same thing with EVERY Presidential election.
In EVERY Presidential Election since the early 60s, BOTH candidates supported civil rights for blacks and in both partiers the white members of their party, north and south, still voted for them, despite that.
Your claim that the Southern strategy is a myth has been debunked 12 ways to Sunday. You’re nothing but a joke now.
Dims are the biggest group of suckers on the planet.
Says the woman that can't support her position at all.
As usual you have no clue what youre talking about. Its amusing you think you know how Black people felt about the loser traitor statues up until recently."My point stands. No one cared for generations."Of course you think you can know. ****** always knows what’s best for the negro.
It’s the natural order of things.
I already noted your use of racial slurs. Do you need me to be clearer and call you a racist?
Beyond that, my point stands. THe decades of no discussion on the issue, even during the 70s and 80s and 90s, and 00s, when such discussions would have been completely safe to have,
kind of shows that no one gave a damn until just recently.
Why is that? THe statues didn't change? What did change?
I offered my opinion on that. You've called me some racial slurs. So, I take you have nothing, other than being a retarded asshole counter my argument with.
My point stands. No one cared for generations. This issue is ginned up bullshit from modern day leftard assholes.
You never had a point. Blacks have always resented those cracka statues of traitors being paid for with their tax money.
Bullshit. Generations of not caring and not saying shit about them.
It only became an issue, very recently cause you leftards got real desperate for wacism to pretend to be upset over.
Got to keep the hate flowing.
Why? I was here. I could see that black communities and populations in their millions, had real shit to worry about, rather than some statues in the park.
I remember.You remember your experience from your perspective without ever exploring the experiences of others from their perspective. That is willful ignorance and your insistence that you know something you don’t is hubris.
I remember being an American who was paying attention to the public discourse.
NO ONE was talking about statues in teh park. NO ONE.
Different "perspectives" did not prevent me from hearing different voices. THere were plenty of voices different than mine. THey were saying all kinds of shit.
NO ONE was talking about the statues in the park, because no one cared.
Some southerns like to celebrate their history, and that had been accepted as fine by our ancestors and it was what we all, always knew, so it was not remarkable to ANYONE.
Until recently, when libtards got really desperate to find something to pretend to be upset about.Your limited experience is obviously not sufficient to know any better.
Your words make no sense. My being me, and thus different from other people, does not mean that I would not or did not hear them when they spoke.
And I did. I heard plenty. Most of it, I did not give a fuck about, but I heard it. NO ONE was talking shit about the statues because no one cared.
Hell, no one was talking about the Dukes of Hazzard, other than how hot Daisy Duke was or how hunky the Duke Boys were.
View attachment 513202
Your wace baiting is stupid.Your limited experience is obviously not sufficient to know any better.
That bit, where you have to cut all the supporting argument, before you dare disagree with the point?
That is your brain dealing with the fact that it knows you are in the wrong.
My point stands.
My being me, and thus different from other people, does not mean that I would not or did not hear them when they spoke.
And I did. I heard plenty. Most of it, I did not give a fuck about, but I heard it. NO ONE was talking shit about the statues because no one cared.
Hell, no one was talking about the Dukes of Hazzard, other than how hot Daisy Duke was or how hunky the Duke Boys were.
View attachment 513202
Your wace baiting is stupid.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Except you don't have to. Nixon's Law and Order Campaign, his "war on drugs", were all meant to pander to scared white people.
Not really a good example. 1976 was unique in that it was two years after Richard Nixon resigned. Ford had no political base, he barely got nominated. Ford had won 49 states the year before.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Yes, I guess that's easier than addressing your own racism.
"You don't like our sellout Uncle Tom who tells us what we want to hear."
Why do you need Uncle Tom to tell you what you want to hear?
Nobody misquoted Trump. What he said was bad enough. I'm sure he could blurt out the N-word tomorrow, and you would make an excuse for him.
NObody stole the election.
Trump really is a Hitler wannabe.
Trump praised Hitler to chief of staff John Kelly during Europe trip, new book claims
A new book says ex-President Donald Trump said that Adolf "Hitler did a lot of good things" in a discussion with John Kelly, his then-chief of staff.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
yes, Fat Irish Sow is upset that Dr. King had sex with women 60 years ago.
She isn't bothered that Trump paid a porn star for sex while his third wife was home with his fifth child.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
This is where you get confused.
All the leftists in the Northern States joined the Democratic Party in the 1930's, not the 1950's.
The 1930's is also when the majority of blacks started voting Democratic as well.
The BRILLIANCE of FDR was how he build a coalition of white southern conservative Democrats and liberal Northern and found common ground in fighting the Great Depression. Yeah, maybe you don't favor moves to advance civil rights, but you do appreciate the New Deal programs that bring jobs to the south.
By 1948, there were cracks. Southern Democrats supported Strom Thurmond (who eventually took his racist followers into the GOP) and Northern progressives supported Henry Wallace (who was removed as Veep Because he was too far to the left in 1944)
1952- the Republicans won for two reasons. 1) Ike was a national hero and 2) he had the good sense to support the New Deal Reforms.
In 1960, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on some issues. But the underlying reforms FDR weren't really in play. Civil rights weren't really in play, either. Both parties had kind of settled into slowly advancing them while still mollifying the Southern Racists.
Then we get to 1964, where the GOP lost blacks pretty much for good. Barry "Deep Down you Know he's nuts" Goldwater didn't support Civil Rights. He didn't support the kind of New Deal reforms that had created a middle class. He won his home state and 5 Southern states and lost the rest of the country.
One white voter in Tennessee asked him, "Why do you want to shut down the TVA, that's our livelihood here?" Some Southerners weren't keen on ending Segregation, but they understood the New Deal had really benefited them.
So instead of going back to the winning formula of Ike of supporting sensible government programs and slow progress on civil rights, Nixon decided to play directly to the racists with code words like Law and Order.
And a white population terrified by the excesses of the 60's voted for him. It really didn't help that the Democrats ran on "Acid, Abortion and Amnesty", but they got enough white people scared into voting against their economic interests. And pretty much every Republican since then has done this shit.
Can't sell the Small Government/Plutocratic/Libertarian Rat poison on it's own. But you wrap it in a nice juicy strip of racist bacon, and they'll gobble that shit right down.
The guy I give some props to is George W. Bush. He actually tried to change the tone on race. He did okay, winning 12% of the black vote and 44% of the Hispanic vote. Sadly, it didn't last.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Joe Biden's $93 Billion Scandal That No One's Talking About Yet
- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
