The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[NYcarbineer]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

You've lost. Quit digging.

Quite the contrary, bub. The desperate whinging by you and your ilk prove that I struck a NOIVE with the truth.

Demolishing your stupid attempt at an argument is what we've done. Go back to your knitting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So let me get this straight. George Wallace AND Lyndon Johnson were both liberals?

lol.

 

[paperview]

So let me get this straight. George Wallace AND Lyndon Johnson were both liberals?

lol.

And Orval Faubus was a liberal Communist, (actually "joined the Communist party" doncha know!) and Bull Conner was "a self-described Socialist."

The things you learn from USMB cons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The GOP has had 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the voting rights act of 1965, to convince black America that the GOP is still their best friend.

And they got about 5% of the black vote in the last two presidential elections to show for it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

You said look at the text, you didnt explain how its wrong though

I'm sorry that you are totally dense, but I really can't help you understand the English language given your limited scope.

Understanding language isnt what you said, you said it was revisionist. I asked how. You keep repeating there are words on the picture lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

So let me get this straight. George Wallace AND Lyndon Johnson were both liberals?

lol.

And Orval Faubus was a liberal Communist, (actually "joined the Communist party" doncha know!) and Bull Conner was "a self-described Socialist."

The things you learn from USMB cons.

Bull Connor was an anti-Communist zealot. We already went through that in one of PC's deranged threads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

You said look at the text, you didnt explain how its wrong though

I'm sorry that you are totally dense, but I really can't help you understand the English language given your limited scope.

Understanding language isnt what you said, you said it was revisionist. I asked how. You keep repeating there are words on the picture lol

She's referring to the title of the stupid article lolol.

Trust me, if she could find anything revisionist and factually inaccurate in that article she would have posted it in bold letters by now.

 

[paperview]

So let me get this straight. George Wallace AND Lyndon Johnson were both liberals?

lol.

And Orval Faubus was a liberal Communist, (actually "joined the Communist party" doncha know!) and Bull Conner was "a self-described Socialist."

The things you learn from USMB cons.

Bull Connor was an anti-Communist zealot. We already went through that in one of PC's deranged threads.

Well Uncensored wrote the most hilarious piece of revision earlier that includes those little gems. (which Rabbi called "facts" lol) I loved to see him back up just one ounce of his shit. Just once.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ideologies remain the same.

Parties throughout history, change.

It's the ideology that matters.

Also, when it comes to the Civil Rights shift in our country, it's sectional north/south.

Conservatives can't seem to grasp these factors and it's really not all that complex, but apparently a little too complex for some of them to wrap their heads around.

Whut?
How The Boston Busing Decision Still Affects City Schools 40 Years Later WBUR

It isnt that you dont know anything. It's that...yeah, ok, it is that you dont know anything.

Your long history of idiocy here precedes you, so there is not much to fear about who knows what.

You fail to grasp the point is not that racism itself is a simply north/south matter, of course there was racism in the nor. Duh....

but the subject we were discussing, and my post was in regards to parties - parties! north/south sectional shift. Get it?

That is, a northern democrat and a southern democrat historically have tended to bend two different ways - and their voting patterns reflected that. Again, this isn't difficult to grasp, but apparently , for you, it was...

Hmm, so let's see. Racism by Democrats in the South, Bad. Racism by Democrats in the North, Good.
Got it.
You're a joke and a half. Your posts fall apart on any inspection at all, leaving you scrambling to salvage some shred of dignity Failing too.

 

[The Rabbi]

Trivia tidbit time for connies...George H.W. Bush, Republican. Fer or 'agin' the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Bush wasnt a conservative.
It isnt that you dont know anyhting. Yeah, it is.

 

[paperview]

Ideologies remain the same.

Parties throughout history, change.

It's the ideology that matters.

Also, when it comes to the Civil Rights shift in our country, it's sectional north/south.

Conservatives can't seem to grasp these factors and it's really not all that complex, but apparently a little too complex for some of them to wrap their heads around.

Whut?
How The Boston Busing Decision Still Affects City Schools 40 Years Later WBUR

It isnt that you dont know anything. It's that...yeah, ok, it is that you dont know anything.

Your long history of idiocy here precedes you, so there is not much to fear about who knows what.

You fail to grasp the point is not that racism itself is a simply north/south matter, of course there was racism in the nor. Duh....

but the subject we were discussing, and my post was in regards to parties - parties! north/south sectional shift. Get it?

That is, a northern democrat and a southern democrat historically have tended to bend two different ways - and their voting patterns reflected that. Again, this isn't difficult to grasp, but apparently , for you, it was...

Hmm, so let's see. Racism by Democrats in the South, Bad. Racism by Democrats in the North, Good.
Got it.
You're a joke and a half. Your posts fall apart on any inspection at all, leaving you scrambling to salvage some shred of dignity Failing too.

And with that, he further proves the first sentence in my last post yet again. lol.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ideologies remain the same.

Parties throughout history, change.

It's the ideology that matters.

Also, when it comes to the Civil Rights shift in our country, it's sectional north/south.

Conservatives can't seem to grasp these factors and it's really not all that complex, but apparently a little too complex for some of them to wrap their heads around.

Whut?
How The Boston Busing Decision Still Affects City Schools 40 Years Later WBUR

It isnt that you dont know anything. It's that...yeah, ok, it is that you dont know anything.

Your long history of idiocy here precedes you, so there is not much to fear about who knows what.

You fail to grasp the point is not that racism itself is a simply north/south matter, of course there was racism in the nor. Duh....

but the subject we were discussing, and my post was in regards to parties - parties! north/south sectional shift. Get it?

That is, a northern democrat and a southern democrat historically have tended to bend two different ways - and their voting patterns reflected that. Again, this isn't difficult to grasp, but apparently , for you, it was...

Hmm, so let's see. Racism by Democrats in the South, Bad. Racism by Democrats in the North, Good.
Got it.
You're a joke and a half. Your posts fall apart on any inspection at all, leaving you scrambling to salvage some shred of dignity Failing too.

And with that, he further proves the first sentence in my last post yet again. lol.

Translation: I've got nothing.
Yeah, you've been pwned on this thread, as you always are. Because you're stupid and ill informed.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Strange, but Alabama voted Republican in the Presidential race of 1964. So did South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Want to try to explain that one? Every other state, with the exception of Arizona, voted for the racist Democrat, LBJ.

Correlation is not cause and effect. In 1956, with Alabama firmly in Democrat control, 39% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. In 1960, 42% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. Obviously, Alabama contained a whole lot of Republicans prior to the 1965 Civil Rights act.

I could go through the same exercise with the rest of the deep South states, but I doubt it would be a useful exercise in this thread.

This is cause and effect. Remember when LBJ said the Civil Rights Act would cost the Democrats the South for a generation?

That was 50 years ago. Want to add up the net won-loss record for Democrats for southern states in presidential elections since then?

Want to compare that to the prior 50 years?

Democrats were already losing the South before the civil rights act was ever passed. LBJ knew that.

For some strange reason, you lefties cannot seem to get your petty little minds around details that debunk your propaganda. In 1952, 40% of Mississippi voters voted for the Republican presidential candidate. That dropped off to 25% in 1956 and 1960, but jumped to 87% in 1964. The party in power in the South was solid in their power base, but a sizable percentage of the voters were Republican in national elections.

I have already shown you the growth in Republican strength in Alabama prior to the civil rights act, but you just blithly ignore anything that counters your preconceived notions.

Prior to 1964, if one wanted to vote for state and local office holders, in the South, one had to be registered as a Democrat, since most of those races were settled in the Democrat primary. Very few Republicans, or independents running for state or local office. Once the Republican party began fielding viable candidates, voters who were Republican leaning switched their registration. It had nothing to do with racism or segregation. However, the Democrat propaganda machine did a fine job with the big lie.

 

[francoHFW]

Racists are conservatives, but conservatives aren't always racists...just usually. lol

 

[Erand7899]

The GOP has had 50 years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the voting rights act of 1965, to convince black America that the GOP is still their best friend.

And they got about 5% of the black vote in the last two presidential elections to show for it.

I have a great idea. How about the Republicans enter into a bidding war with the Democrats to win over all these voting blocs? A cell phone in every pocket, welfare checks in the mail, affirmative action on every front, and not just equal pay for women, but more pay for women. Free abortions, free contraceptions, and free day care for all.

Wouldn't we have a wonderful nation?

 

[Plasmaball]

its fun watching people talk about this in black and white terms ( get it? black and white)
Wallace can have liberal policies and still be a racist when it came to civil rights that produced the current political climate of today. Which is what happened. The southern democrats become the GOP of today because of this issue.

 

[Stephanie]

Racists are conservatives, but conservatives aren't always racists...just usually. lol

stay up all night thinking up that one?

 

[The Rabbi]

So let me get this straight. George Wallace AND Lyndon Johnson were both liberals?

lol.

And Orval Faubus was a liberal Communist, (actually "joined the Communist party" doncha know!) and Bull Conner was "a self-described Socialist."

The things you learn from USMB cons.

The problem isnt that you dont know anything. OK, that is the problem.

When the United States entered World War II, Faubus joined the United States Army and served as an intelligence officer with the Third Army of General George Patton. He rose to the rank of major and was in combat several times. His book, In This Faraway Land, documents the military period of his life. He was active in veterans' causes for the remainder of his life.

When Faubus returned from the war, he cultivated ties with leaders of Arkansas' Democratic Party, particularly with progressive reform Governor Sid McMath, leader of the post-war "GI Revolt" against corruption, under whom he served as director of the state's highway commission. Meanwhile, conservative Francis Cherry defeated McMath's bid for a third term in the 1952 Democratic primary. Cherry became unpopular with voters, and Faubus challenged him in the 1954 primary.

Faubus rejected his father's radicalism for the more mainline New Deal, a pragmatic move. He was elected governor as a liberal Democrat. A 'moderate' on racial issues, his political realism resurfaced as he adopted racial policies that were palatable to influential white voters in the Delta region as part of a strategy to effect key social reforms and economic growth in Arkansas.[3]

The 1954 campaign
In the 1954 campaign, Faubus was compelled to defend his attendance at the defunct northwest Arkansas Commonwealth College in Mena, as well as his early political upbringing. Commonwealth College had been formed by leftist academic and social activists, some of whom later were revealed to have had close ties with the Communist Party of the United States of America. Most of those who attended and taught there were idealistic young people who sought an education or, in the case of the faculty, a job which came with room and board.[4] During the runoff, Cherry and his surrogates accused Faubus of having attended a "communist" school and implied that his sympathies remained leftist. Faubus at first denied attending, and then admitted enrolling "for only a few weeks". Later, it was shown that he had remained at the school for more than a year, earned good grades, and was elected student body president. Faubus led a group of students who testified on behalf of the college's accreditation before the state legislature. Nevertheless, efforts to paint the candidate as a communist sympathizer backfired in a climate of growing resentment against such allegations. Faubus hence narrowly defeated Cherry to win the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Relations were cool between the two men for years, but when Cherry died in 1965, Faubus put politics aside and was magnanimous in praising his predecessor.[4]

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

That Democrats historically hate blacks?

 

[The Rabbi]

its fun watching people talk about this in black and white terms ( get it? black and white)
Wallace can have liberal policies and still be a racist when it came to civil rights that produced the current political climate of today. Which is what happened. The southern democrats become the GOP of today because of this issue.

Well you said half of what I wrote. Wallace was a progressive. Faubus was a leftist. The Southern Democrat of 1964 is largely dead. The vast majority of voters in the South were born after the Civil Rights Act or were children when it happened.