Real Racism: A History of the Democratic Party

[Crackerjaxon]

You need to look up antebellum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WTF? Go back and re-read the nonsense you just wrote. I don't even have counter as everyone can see the weakness in your ridiculous position.

Can't handle a solid inspection by an outsider of your imperfections. That's obvious.

You are a closet racist and snob. You wouldn't last 15 minutes in a stand-up dialogue with an opponent on a college campus or bookstore platform. One, your philsophical positions are indefensible, and, two, emotionally, you are so shallow and immature.

An aside: I bet you don't even read Langston Hughes or Claude McKay competently out loud to an audience.

I'm a racist, because I disagree with your view of black people???? LOL
You don't know me, or what I'm capable of....but you do, however, know I'm more than capable of handily handling mental midgets like you. And you pegged me correct by labeling me "a snob", as I am, in spades....and especially, in the close proximity of conservatives.
And fyi, I gave a performance , specifically reading from Langston Hughes, in concert with Kenneth Gayle and Rodney Waters, at The Heinen Theater, two years ago. Google them, retarded *****.

I know exactly of what you are capble: very little. Now, instead of dissing the challenged, you are dissing women. Those who perform at The Heinen etc are an elitist and liberal set of artists more known for leftist causes than artistic talent. Be that as it may: I said you did not read Hughes or McKay competently. Nothing in the research shows anything differently.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.the democrats didnt support shit in the 50s, hell LBJ watered down the 1957 Civil Rights bill so the racists in the party wouldnt cause shit...he's a trojan horse, and you people fell for that crap

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The racists of the left here are arguing with the racists of the reactionary wing.

My job here is done.

Unsubscribe.

 

[buckeye45_73]

.the democrats didnt support shit in the 50s, hell LBJ watered down the 1957 Civil Rights bill so the racists in the party wouldnt cause shit...he's a trojan horse, and you people fell for that crap

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

no starkey, the same people were around, and it all needs context. See youre' great civil rights champion, LBJ, was more of a politician than a champ of civil rights.

Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In sharp contrast to his later Presidency, as Senate Majority Leader Johnson was strongly opposed to Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act, fearful that its passage would tear his party apart. Thus with the help of the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, the bill ended up being far weaker than it originally started, but it still became law and Johnson tried to give himself credit for its passage.

And democrats operate that way to this day!

 

[tinydancer]

.the democrats didnt support shit in the 50s, hell LBJ watered down the 1957 Civil Rights bill so the racists in the party wouldnt cause shit...he's a trojan horse, and you people fell for that crap

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

 

[Political Junky]

.the democrats didnt support shit in the 50s, hell LBJ watered down the 1957 Civil Rights bill so the racists in the party wouldnt cause shit...he's a trojan horse, and you people fell for that crap

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

And both very conservative.

 

[buckeye45_73]

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

And both very conservative.

See liberals change the name.....


We;re talking about democrats

You want to talk conservatives, ok

When was the last time a democrat was more conservative in a presidential election?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem. Get over yourself.

Faubus, Wallace, Goldwater opposed the action, among others. Nothing you have said above rebuts that the Dems led the charge in the 1960s aided by the GOP minority. We were talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The congressional votes support that view.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem. Get over yourself.

Faubus, Wallace, Goldwater opposed the action, among others. Nothing you have said above rebuts that the Dems led the charge in the 1960s aided by the GOP minority. We were talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The congressional votes support that view.

Starkey, you're full of shit, you have no proof,

When was the last time a democrat was more conservative in a presidential election?
Name the people who switched to republican in the 60s-70s?
why did the south vote for democrats, except in landslides until 2000?
Why did the democrats keep state and local seats until the 90s?

 

[tinydancer]

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

And both very conservative.

Oh bite me. I know this argument well.
Who can I be now?

Lincoln was "liberal". The KKK were "conservative" democrats. Jim Crow laws were enacted by "ultra right wing democrats".

Shall I continue? I know everything out there. I know your talking points very well.

I've seen such bullshit on such a repetitive basis before it makes one want to bazooka barf.

 

[tinydancer]

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem. Get over yourself.

Faubus, Wallace, Goldwater opposed the action, among others. Nothing you have said above rebuts that the Dems led the charge in the 1960s aided by the GOP minority. We were talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The congressional votes support that view.

You prove the Dems led the charge. This is your assertion. You prove it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem. Get over yourself.

Faubus, Wallace, Goldwater opposed the action, among others. Nothing you have said above rebuts that the Dems led the charge in the 1960s aided by the GOP minority. We were talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The congressional votes support that view.

You prove the Dems led the charge. This is your assertion. You prove it.

Hmmm. Pres Kennedy, Pres Johnson, the legislation, the votes, the majority leadership was Democratic.

If you don't want to believe it, fine, but that is silly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been sending the reactionaries' nonsense for almost to weeks now on to several of my friends who teach in HS and college.

Most of them are including or have already done so the silliniess of the reactionaries to demonstrate that racism is alive and well today and that students need to be on their guard.

 

[rightwinger]

.the democrats didnt support shit in the 50s, hell LBJ watered down the 1957 Civil Rights bill so the racists in the party wouldnt cause shit...he's a trojan horse, and you people fell for that crap

L'il fella, stfu. We are talking about the sixties (1964, 1965). The Civil Rights and Voting acts of 1964 and 1965 was a Dem-led and GOP-supported action. The votes support that view.

The only revisionism is located in puss pocket racist brains today.

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

Wallace was a segregationist?

damn......you are good

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who knew?

 

[rightwinger]

Put down the bong. I just proved Wallace and Faubus were two huge segregationists that were Dem.

Get over yourself.

And both very conservative.

Oh bite me. I know this argument well.
Who can I be now?

Lincoln was "liberal". The KKK were "conservative" democrats. Jim Crow laws were enacted by "ultra right wing democrats".

Shall I continue? I know everything out there. I know your talking points very well.

I've seen such bullshit on such a repetitive basis before it makes one want to bazooka barf.

Lincoln was a liberal
KKK was conservative
Jim Crow was enacted by southerners of both parties

 

[JakeStarkey]

And both very conservative.

Oh bite me. I know this argument well.
Who can I be now?

Lincoln was "liberal". The KKK were "conservative" democrats. Jim Crow laws were enacted by "ultra right wing democrats".

Shall I continue? I know everything out there. I know your talking points very well.

I've seen such bullshit on such a repetitive basis before it makes one want to bazooka barf.

Lincoln was a liberal
KKK was conservative
Jim Crow was enacted by southerners of both parties

Lincoln was an evolving "liberal" over decades
KKK was a criminal organization
Jim Crow was enacted by white southerns and midwesterners of both parties

 

[poet]

OMG, the cutoff is knowing them really well. Yeah I knew the guy I was working for, and pretty well, but probably not that well. I mean do I have to explain this to you? There are some things you say to close friends you dont say to others.

But watch the clip, I bring it up and you dismiss it, it's not about sports, it's about the racist attitude of blacks who get pissed when other date white chicks or when they vote republican....because if you do either you're not really black, whatever that means.

WTF? Why would you ******* say it at all? You're one of those racist ***** that just has to say it, aren't you? I'm all for interracial dating and marriage. I'm in an interracial marriage. I have interracial marriages in my family. WTF?

you just said that Thomas has a white trophy wife. Why say that then?
and no I dont have to say it, man you have some obsession over a word, you need to get that checked into, it's pathological.

Clarence Thomas, whose hearing for his admittance to the Supreme Court, was delayed and "tainted" by his predatory nature, as a "sexual harasser"...of a "black woman", yet he was married to a white woman...obviously, "a trophy wife", in the same sense as O.J. Simpson, who felt the need to go outside of his race, after being married to a black woman, who bore him 3 children.
And you're a liar. You made such a big deal over being so cavalier with the word, and wondered what was my objection to it, since "blacks say it to blacks" all the time, right? No, Buckie, what is pathological is your need to be so "flip" and "cavalier" with the absolute worst word in the English lexicon. It's my mission to call any whites out on it, who use the word, as if it were nothing. I wish there was a word equal that I could call you in return...sadly, there is not. You're a vile racist piece of shit and trailer trash.

 

[poet]

Can't handle a solid inspection by an outsider of your imperfections. That's obvious.

You are a closet racist and snob. You wouldn't last 15 minutes in a stand-up dialogue with an opponent on a college campus or bookstore platform. One, your philsophical positions are indefensible, and, two, emotionally, you are so shallow and immature.

An aside: I bet you don't even read Langston Hughes or Claude McKay competently out loud to an audience.

I'm a racist, because I disagree with your view of black people???? LOL
You don't know me, or what I'm capable of....but you do, however, know I'm more than capable of handily handling mental midgets like you. And you pegged me correct by labeling me "a snob", as I am, in spades....and especially, in the close proximity of conservatives.
And fyi, I gave a performance , specifically reading from Langston Hughes, in concert with Kenneth Gayle and Rodney Waters, at The Heinen Theater, two years ago. Google them, retarded *****.

I know exactly of what you are capble: very little. Now, instead of dissing the challenged, you are dissing women. Those who perform at The Heinen etc are an elitist and liberal set of artists more known for leftist causes than artistic talent. Be that as it may: I said you did not read Hughes or McKay competently. Nothing in the research shows anything differently.

Again, I'm dealing with a degenerate retarded ****. You know nothing of the predilection of the artists mentioned or their politics. You know nothing of my performance, not being in attendance. All you have is speculation and supposition, nothing that would "ring true" in a court of law. I don't have to prove myself to you or anyone. You, however, obviously, are in need of a remedial English course, because your spelling is lacking. Keep trying...hope springs eternal.