Republicans Submit Articles To Impeach Biden As Soon As He's Sworn In

[Asclepias]

Do you think they have the nuts?
If I was in Congress that's what I'd be doing right now.
They've impeached Trump twice, cheapening the process.....so clearly impeaching a president just for general purposes is the precedent.

I think that impeaching a president, just because you can, is wrong.....and should not be tolerated.....but that's what Democrats are essentially doing.

Congress is broken.....and I don't see it recovering any time soon.

Nolte: President Joe Biden Will Be Immediately Impeached for 4 Scandals

There is just no question a Biden administration will immediately be paralyzed by impeachment proceedings.

www.breitbart.com

"If Joe Biden happens to be elected president this year, he will enter office more hobbled by major scandals than any president in the history of the presidency, and there is just no question that his administration will be immediately paralyzed by impeachment proceedings.​

​

​

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can think of no other major presidential candidate, and certainly no other president (if he should win) who, on the day he was sworn in, would be immediately engulfed by not just one, but four — four! — impeachable scandals.​

​

​

There’s just no question that if Biden wins, once he takes office, his administration will be bogged down by legitimate investigations into his actual and credibly suspected wrongdoing, corruption, self-dealing, and sexual misconduct."​

​

​

The idea you think Trump did nothing wrong is comical.

He used federal funds to bribe a foreign official for political dirt on an adversary.

Then he foments a riot & insurrection in the Capitol.

You forgot he tried to mafia several state voting officials.

 

[BWK]

Do you think they have the nuts?
If I was in Congress that's what I'd be doing right now.
They've impeached Trump twice, cheapening the process.....so clearly impeaching a president just for general purposes is the precedent.

I think that impeaching a president just because you can is wrong.....and should not be tolerated.....but that's what Democrats are essentially doing.

Congress is broken.....and I don't see it recovering any time soon.

Nolte: President Joe Biden Will Be Immediately Impeached for 4 Scandals

There is just no question a Biden administration will immediately be paralyzed by impeachment proceedings.

www.breitbart.com

"If Joe Biden happens to be elected president this year, he will enter office more hobbled by major scandals than any president in the history of the presidency, and there is just no question that his administration will be immediately paralyzed by impeachment proceedings.​

​

​

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can think of no other major presidential candidate, and certainly no other president (if he should win) who, on the day he was sworn in, would be immediately engulfed by not just one, but four — four! — impeachable scandals.​

​

​

There’s just no question that if Biden wins, once he takes office, his administration will be bogged down by legitimate investigations into his actual and credibly suspected wrongdoing, corruption, self-dealing, and sexual misconduct."​

​

​

let's see. You say:

If he should win. He's already won.

The House is still Demo controlled where such a bill wouldn't make it off the floor. Even all the Republicans wouldn't vote for it.

Rump is gone, Biden gets sworn in on Jan 20th. Get used to it.

Biden didn't win diddly squat and anyone that can claim that with a straight face is just asn inept as pedo Joe.....

I claim it, and you are a liar who cannot prove Biden didn't win.

Yes, we know what you've been told to say.

Are you saying I've been told to say Biden won? Dude, you have got to be high on something.

You've been told to believe Biden won fairly and transparently. You're a gullible moron.

And you've been told there was voter fraud with zero evidence. You should be ashamed for sucking up to these lies.

Uh huh. And you somehow believe you're morally superior for voting for the wealthy white pedophile.

I voted for a man, not a pedophile you lie about. All you do is lie repeatedly, and you are never able to defend them. You're a real piece of work.

Why are you messing with Dave the Traitor. If you don't answer him, he'll just go away. Sometime after Jan 20th, Rump gets the same thing except for the various courts that want a piece of him and his merry band of criminals. Once that is done, he's gone. Let's see how many Senators won't vote for removing him from office. That way we'll know how to vote in 2022 and 2024.

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Pogo laughed at this post. Unintelligent people laugh at things they don't understand.

I laughed, because I knew at first sight what I was about to do with it.

Chuckle. I kill me.

Yes. You knew you were going to play your Bullshit Card. Because that's all you've got.

Actually that's more of that thar "history". You know, that shit that you had no clue about with the Southern Strategy and got your ass handed to you?

 

[BWK]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

 

[lantern2814]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

Try again. History says you’re a liar. Did they support this or not? Actions say no. Actions speak louder than words. Then again, critical thinking is beyond you. Math must be hard too. You can’t just split the vote count. Try totaling it up retard. Then again you keep claiming Sandmann will get nothing after he already won. Seems you’re incapable of learning. By the way, that’s the Senate version total. The final bill isn’t there.

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

Racism is not a political party thing, dear. I don't know what "Magic Switch" you have but you should prolly beat yourself with it.

That's a Southern joke thing, boy.

Yes, being you requires ignoring reality. You can pout and stamp your feet all you want, however; I'm not going to join in your delusions.

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

Try again. History says you’re a liar. Did they support this or not? Actions say no. Actions speak louder than words. Then again, critical thinking is beyond you. Math must be hard too. You can’t just split the vote count. Try totaling it up retard. Then again you keep claiming Sandmann will get nothing after he already won. Seems you’re incapable of learning. By the way, that’s the Senate version total. The final bill isn’t there.

I just gave you the FIGURES, retard.

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Pogo laughed at this post. Unintelligent people laugh at things they don't understand.

I laughed, because I knew at first sight what I was about to do with it.

Chuckle. I kill me.

Yes. You knew you were going to play your Bullshit Card. Because that's all you've got.

Actually that's more of that thar "history". You know, that shit that you had no clue about with the Southern Strategy and got your ass handed to you?

Dood, you ignore reality harder than anyone I ever met.

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Stupid, simplistic, and fits on a bumper sticker. Yep, that's a leftist belief, all right.

 

[lantern2814]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.


>>

Try again. History says you’re a liar. Did they support this or not? Actions say no. Actions speak louder than words. Then again, critical thinking is beyond you. Math must be hard too. You can’t just split the vote count. Try totaling it up retard. Then again you keep claiming Sandmann will get nothing after he already won. Seems you’re incapable of learning. By the way, that’s the Senate version total. The final bill isn’t there.

I just gave you the FIGURES, retard.

It says Senate version retard. You didn’t even read your own shit did you?

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

GUNS BOOGA BOOGA!!!

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Pogo laughed at this post. Unintelligent people laugh at things they don't understand.

I laughed, because I knew at first sight what I was about to do with it.

Chuckle. I kill me.

Yes. You knew you were going to play your Bullshit Card. Because that's all you've got.

Actually that's more of that thar "history". You know, that shit that you had no clue about with the Southern Strategy and got your ass handed to you?

Dood, you ignore reality harder than anyone I ever met.

Daveward posts "note to self", mistakenly drops it on USMB.

You got schlonged, Gunnerhands. You had no idea of the history you tried to deny, and got your clock cleaned.

 

[BWK]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

What a nut job. And a hell of a liar.

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Pogo laughed at this post. Unintelligent people laugh at things they don't understand.

I laughed, because I knew at first sight what I was about to do with it.

Chuckle. I kill me.

Yes. You knew you were going to play your Bullshit Card. Because that's all you've got.

Actually that's more of that thar "history". You know, that shit that you had no clue about with the Southern Strategy and got your ass handed to you?

Dood, you ignore reality harder than anyone I ever met.

Daveward posts "note to self", mistakenly drops it on USMB.

You got schlonged, Gunnerhands. You had no idea of the history you tried to deny, and got your clock cleaned.

Good Gaea, will you stop whining that I don't believe leftist alternate history? I'm a rational person. I'm not going to embrace your fantasies.

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

What a nut job. And a hell of a liar.

That's 'cuz he gets his practice in, every day.

 

[Asclepias]

USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

""Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South."

Michael Steele: For Decades GOP Pursued 'Southern Strategy' That Alienated Minorities

Michael Steele: For Decades GOP Pursued 'Southern Strategy' That Alienated Minorities

www.huffpost.com

"For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton"

 

[daveman]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

What a nut job. And a hell of a liar.

You fellahs sure do get upset that people are allowed to disagree with you.

 

[Pogo]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Pogo laughed at this post. Unintelligent people laugh at things they don't understand.

I laughed, because I knew at first sight what I was about to do with it.

Chuckle. I kill me.

Yes. You knew you were going to play your Bullshit Card. Because that's all you've got.

Actually that's more of that thar "history". You know, that shit that you had no clue about with the Southern Strategy and got your ass handed to you?

Dood, you ignore reality harder than anyone I ever met.

Daveward posts "note to self", mistakenly drops it on USMB.

You got schlonged, Gunnerhands. You had no idea of the history you tried to deny, and got your clock cleaned.

Good Gaea, will you stop whining that I don't believe leftist alternate history? I'm a rational person. I'm not going to embrace your fantasies.

Guess what Daveward ---- History doesn't give a shit whether you embrace it or not. Know why? Because she knows there's nothing you can do about it.

I know it too. That's why I wield it like a truncheon.

And you with your "Magic Switch". Hee hee hee.

 

[Asclepias]

How would it be any diff than how the GOP treated Bill Clinton? This stupid feud has been going on since the rabid Reagan Repubs started it when GWB sr lost his reelection attempt.

Go back farther. When you guys formed the KKK to oppose Lincoln's policies is when it really started.

Moonglow did not form the KKK. That is unless his name is James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John Booker Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord or Richard R. Reed and he's at least 179 years old. NOR was it formed to "oppose Lincoln's policies" (who was already dead) or for any political purpose at all.

Remember, kids, no Democrat today is responsible for the KKK, but all Republicans today are responsible for slavery in America. So pay up!

Hey, Pogo, what have you done to assuage your white guilt today?

First time I have ever heard you admit to the Southern Strategy. Good for you.

Really? I'm responsible for the slavery that Republicans ended a century and a half ago?

I'd ask you to explain that rationally, but you're incapable.

You arent responsible for anything other than yourself. I was just congratulating you on admitting to the Southern Strategy

I was mocking leftist retardery. Are you admitting leftists are retarded?

The Southern Strategy is a myth, a desperate effort by Democrats to distance themselves from their 20th Century legislative racism.

Idiots buy it. Obviously.

It is known as history, and I am old enough to remember it happening.

You remember what didn't happen, then.

I am not the only one here who remembers it.

Yep, I remember it too. Reagan kicking off his presidential campaign in of all places Philadelphia ... not the one in Pennsylvania where the Constitution came together where the Liberty Bell is, no the one in Mississippi where the infamous triple murder of civil rights activists went down in 1964, talking about "states' rights". 1964, the same year "states' rights" George Wallace offered to be Barry Goldwater's running mate because candidate Goldwater had voted against the Civil rights Act (Goldwater didn't need Wallace; he won the deep South without him).

Then there was the Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, analyzing what Dave thinks never existed, in 1981:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******." <<​

​

That was the blueprint for the Republican Party to take over the one-party-rule of the South by highlighting race and how it (the RP) was going to be the device to keep black people down more so than the Democrats. And the Democrats obliged -- or we could say got it started -- by passing that 1964 Civil Rights Act, triggering both Wallace's offer and Strom Thurmond's until-then-unthinkable departure to the "party of Lincoln". Thus broke the dam.

Guess Daveward Gunnerhands never learned about all this shit while he was immersed in his guns.

I have no obligation to believe your fantasies, pussy.

Actually it's quoted history. And yes you're free to bury your head in the sand and wail to anyone who will still listen that it didn't happen. Even though it's all in the history books. Not the direction I would have taken but hey, that's just me.

The history of the Democratic Party is based on racism, and it continues to this day. You can't NUH UH your way out of it, no matter how hard you try. But you need to realize your acknowledgement is neither sought nor required.

Oh look. Daveward Gunnerhands wants to be awarded a drive-by because he can't argue with quoted history.
That's so cute. Rendered impotent by histories of fifty years ago he wants to shift to 190. Bravely ran away.

Oh look, Slogo the retarded monkey claims Dems supported the Civil Rights Act? No retard. There was almost ZERO support from Dems for that, giving blacks citizenship and the right to vote, or giving women the right to vote. All there in recorded history. Yet you choose to keep your head up your ass. Most people would be ashamed to be like you.

Next slide please

>> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.​

​

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. <<​

Gotta say, it's kind of amazing how y'all Bubblistas keep getting your collective ass schooled on this shit, and yet trot it right back out again looking for different results. It's as if y'all are just incapable of learning.

You mean like you pulling out the Magic Party Switch that lets you pretend Democrat racism didn't exist?

The Democrat party was the Republican party back in the day. Get a clue.

Dave can't pick up clues. He got dem guns in his hands.

What a nut job. And a hell of a liar.

You fellahs sure do get upset that people are allowed to disagree with you.

Youre allowed to disagree. I just dont want to hear you whining again about how Blacks dont support your party.