The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[Rikurzhen]

Yup, segregation is great. We're now trying integration- very difficult with the racist GOP. I'm afraid you blew your cover a while ago.

The GOP forced the Clintons to move to a town with a 0.7% black population?

 

[francoHFW]

And they are discriminated against by hater dupes like you. Bad schools, bad loans, no training, corrupt depressions, no jobs, no enterprise zones, no groceries. To hell with hater dupes. Literally.

 

[Antares]

And they are discriminated against by hater dupes like you. Bad schools, bad loans, no training, corrupt depressions, no jobs, no enterprise zones, no groceries. To hell with hater dupes. Literally.

Shut up and give them your pension dipwad.

 

[2aguy]

the old democrat party believed in owning black people as,slaves...and when forced to release those slaves by the republicans...the younger democrats realized that instead of using state power to own black Americans, they could use Federal power to control all Americans....so they began with the New Deal....and followed that with the great society...and now to they will finish with obamacare....

 

[francoHFW]

Dems like to help poor people and unfortunates- which helps everyone in the long run. Leave it to racist hater dupes to use that for ridiculous theories about plantations lol...chumps of greedy idiot GOP con men ...

 

[francoHFW]

And they are discriminated against by hater dupes like you. Bad schools, bad loans, no training, corrupt depressions, no jobs, no enterprise zones, no groceries. To hell with hater dupes. Literally.

Shut up and give them your pension dipwad.

I happily pay my taxes for the good of the country, while you racist a-holes selfishly and stupidly wrangle for every penny, leaving yourselves open to being screwed over and over by GOP conmen and their big business cronies. Silly hater dupes.

 

[francoHFW]

the old democrat party believed in owning black people as,slaves...and when forced to release those slaves by the republicans...the younger democrats realized that instead of using state power to own black Americans, they could use Federal power to control all Americans....so they began with the New Deal....and followed that with the great society...and now to they will finish with obamacare....

Silly hater dupes fighting for the freedom to be absolutely screwed by the new bs GOP greedy idiot rich...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.

So what? Keep your eyes on the ball, boy.

Dot com claimed the following " All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965"

Simple question, is he right or wrong in making that claim?

My morning fix. Republicans still trying to convince the world that they are the real freedom lovers and friends of minorities. The posts one these forums dripping with hatred towards minorities and blacks that aren't walter williams clones are good evidence of the opposite feelings of republicans. All the efforts to stop early voting in places like Ohio, more evidence. The scorn towards blacks in Detroit that now can't pay their water bills. The blaming of people on welfare and other safety nets as the cause for America's economic woes and not one word about the freebies corporate america and the very wealthy get. Nice try repubs, but it appears the blacks and many ordinary working people aren't buying the crap you're peddling.

What you actually see is disgust with racial pandering that has kept people dependent with an entitlement mentality. Yes, there is scorn towards people who think they are entitled to free shit merely because they are breathing. Something you may not get.

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

 

[francoHFW]

A transparent insurer competition that is lowering your costs and guanteeing health care is controlling you. Brainwashed functional moron.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.

So what? Keep your eyes on the ball, boy.

Dot com claimed the following " All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965"

Simple question, is he right or wrong in making that claim?

My morning fix. Republicans still trying to convince the world that they are the real freedom lovers and friends of minorities. The posts one these forums dripping with hatred towards minorities and blacks that aren't walter williams clones are good evidence of the opposite feelings of republicans. All the efforts to stop early voting in places like Ohio, more evidence. The scorn towards blacks in Detroit that now can't pay their water bills. The blaming of people on welfare and other safety nets as the cause for America's economic woes and not one word about the freebies corporate america and the very wealthy get. Nice try repubs, but it appears the blacks and many ordinary working people aren't buying the crap you're peddling.

What you actually see is disgust with racial pandering that has kept people dependent with an entitlement mentality. Yes, there is scorn towards people who think they are entitled to free shit merely because they are breathing. Something you may not get.

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

It's not your business to strip people of their human rights.

What is so difficult to understand here. "I may not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to speak your mind."

 

[Dad2three]

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

A Dem? Oh you mean Southerner who was CONSERVATIVE and would be a GOPer today?

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)


On the right's revisionist history of the GOP and civil rights

...White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the former two took time doesn’t discount the first.

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History Again


The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights


The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt.


The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.

So what? Keep your eyes on the ball, boy.

Dot com claimed the following " All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965"

Simple question, is he right or wrong in making that claim?

My morning fix. Republicans still trying to convince the world that they are the real freedom lovers and friends of minorities. The posts one these forums dripping with hatred towards minorities and blacks that aren't walter williams clones are good evidence of the opposite feelings of republicans. All the efforts to stop early voting in places like Ohio, more evidence. The scorn towards blacks in Detroit that now can't pay their water bills. The blaming of people on welfare and other safety nets as the cause for America's economic woes and not one word about the freebies corporate america and the very wealthy get. Nice try repubs, but it appears the blacks and many ordinary working people aren't buying the crap you're peddling.

What you actually see is disgust with racial pandering that has kept people dependent with an entitlement mentality. Yes, there is scorn towards people who think they are entitled to free shit merely because they are breathing. Something you may not get.

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

It's not your business to strip people of their human rights.

What is so difficult to understand here. "I may not agree with what you say but I shall defend to the death your right to speak your mind."

Is that supposed to mean something?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

When was the last time that you went to eat at a Chinese restaurant and were served by a red-headed Irish lass or a lanky Ethiopian man?

 

[Dad2three]

The article, btw, is brilliant,

mostly because it elaborates on exactly what people like myself have been trying to explain to you ineducable fools for years.

Here's the truth

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag

The civil rights movement was never a far left wing movement. More revisionist history.

REALLY? lol

 

[boedicca]

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

The question wasn't aimed at me, but yes.

We have freedom of association per the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government should not force people to associate against their will. Anyone who is stupid enough to deny their business to others is self-destructive, but the Constitution isn't there to protect an individual from himself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

When was the last time that you went to eat at a Chinese restaurant and were served by a red-headed Irish lass or a lanky Ethiopian man?

It's a yes or no question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

The question wasn't aimed at me, but yes.

We have freedom of association per the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The government should not force people to associate against their will. Anyone who is stupid enough to deny their business to others is self-destructive, but the Constitution isn't there to protect an individual from himself.

There, see? The author of this thread that attempts to attack conservative Democrats actually agrees with those conservative Democrats.

 

[Dad2three]

Someone in another thread wanted a Republican racist to be named. My response was that the left would name George Wallace. Funny stuff. Not sure what the article of the OP states, I try not to read stuff where one side is trying to tell me what the other side thinks.

Reagan's Race Legacy


Philadelphia, county seat of Mississippi's Neshoba County, is famous for a couple of things. That is where three civil rights workers -- Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman -- were murdered in 1964. And that is where, in 1980, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan chose to launch his election campaign, with a ringing endorsement of "states' rights."


I don't accuse Reagan of racism, though while he served, I did note what seemed to be his indifference to the concerns of black Americans -- issues ranging from civil rights enforcement and attacks on "welfare queens" to his refusal to act seriously against the apartheid regime in South Africa. He gets full credit from me for the good things he did -- including presiding over the end of international communism. But he also legitimized, by his broad wink at it, racial indifference -- and worse.
Reagan s Race Legacy washingtonpost.com

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you believe that a business should have the right to discriminate based on race? Do you believe that business should have the right to serve or not serve anyone, for any reason?

When was the last time that you went to eat at a Chinese restaurant and were served by a red-headed Irish lass or a lanky Ethiopian man?

It's a yes or no question.

Why do you put profits ahead of human rights?

 

[mudwhistle]

If you want to know which party is more racist, look no further than the U.S. Congress...

Democrats: 42 blacks
Republicans: 1 black

Wow, that's proves everything.

We can go home now folks.

Fauns' shown us all how racist the GOP really is. Hardly any blacks want to be one.

Or could be just that running as a Democrat is easier because they own the mainstream media?

Nah, plenty of blacks want to be one. It's the racist right who won't elect them.

Yeah, and I have a bridge in New Jersey to sell you too.