The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[RetiredGySgt]

600K white men died to end slavery!

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?

Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.

The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.

Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.

 

[IM2]

Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...

Summary ==> Being the nanny state.

Wonder why people need all those things ?

Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster. When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?

We can only hope.

Helping people who need help.

Republican “plantations” are called prisons.

Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.

I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.

All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.

That is so myopic and sad.

Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons

They fill them with non violent offenders

Today I learned there are no prisons in blue states, and liberals don't put non-violent offenders in prison.

You didn't learn that. What you should have learned is that the notion of a liberal plantation is a fucked up racist meme used by republicans that they need to stop using if they really want blacks to join their party.

 

[IM2]

600K white men died to end slavery!

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?

Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.

The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.

Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.

Right now there are slaves in Europe and in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?

Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.

The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.

Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.

Right now there are slaves in Europe and in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.

LOL you DEFEND blacks who did the EXACT same thing, You are racist to the CORE.

 

[IM2]

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?

Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.

The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.

Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.

Right now there are slaves in Europe and in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.

LOL you DEFEND blacks who did the EXACT same thing, You are racist to the CORE.

I'm not defending blacks who did the same thing because they didn't.

The Schomburg Center for the Research of Black Culture has excellent information about the African slave trade that provides a stark contrast between what happened and what some use as an excuse to discount the experiences of blacks in America. The web site is named, “The Abolition of the Slave Trade-African Resistance.” From the introduction, information contained in this collection debunks the race pimped tales presented by some in America today.

“Africans started to fight the transatlantic slave trade as soon as it began. Their struggles were multifaceted and covered four continents over four centuries. Still, they have often been underestimated, overlooked, or forgotten. African resistance was reported in European sources only when it concerned attacks on slave ships and company barracoons, but acts of resistance also took place far from the coast and thus escaped the slavers’ attention. To discover them, oral history, archaeology, and autobiographies and biographies of African victims of the slave trade have to be probed. Taken together, these various sources offer a detailed image of the varied strategies Africans used to defend themselves from and mount attacks against the slave trade.


The Africans’ resistance continued in the Americas. They ran away, established maroon communities, used sabotage, conspired, and rose against those who held them in captivity. Freed people petitioned the authorities, led information campaigns, and worked actively to abolish the slave trade and slavery.


In Europe, black abolitionists launched or participated in civic movements to end the deportation and enslavement of Africans. They too delivered speeches, provided information, wrote newspaper articles and books.


Using violent as well as nonviolent means, Africans in Africa, the Americas, and Europe were constantly involved in the fight against the slave trade and slavery.”

The tale of Africa’s role in the slave trade as told by a segment of white society is incomplete and disingenuous. This has been done on purpose. It was not so simple as blacks capturing each other and selling them to whites. Europeans did not just waltz into Africa and overwhelm a bunch of backward, naked, dumb savages. They were in a fight for 400 years. Quite a number of Europeans entered Africa and Africa ended up being their final resting place.

“Some leaders actively worked against the transatlantic slave trade. One of the most famous was Abdel Kader Kane, the Muslim leader of the Futa Toro region in northern Senegal. Kane had succeeded in peopling his kingdom by retaking by force his people who had been kidnapped and by forbidding slave caravans from passing through his territory. After the French took three children from Futa, Kane sent a letter to the governor:


We are warning you that all those who will come to our land to trade [in slaves] will be killed and massacred if you do not send our children back. Would not somebody who was very hungry abstain from eating if he had to eat something cooked with his blood? We absolutely do not want you to buy Muslims under any circumstances. I repeat that if your intention is to always buy Muslims you should stay home and not come to our country anymore. Because all those who will come can be assured that they will lose their life.”

We are told stories about the shackles and chains, but we are not told the complete story of why they were needed. It is just “you sold your own into balls and chains.” But the story is just not that simple.

“As the slave trade expanded, resistance to it grew as well, and the need for shackles, guns, ropes, chains, iron balls, and whips tells an eloquent story of continuous and violent struggle from the hinterland to the high seas. As one slave trader remarked:


For the security and safekeeping of the slaves on board or on shore in the African barracoons, chains, leg irons, handcuffs, and strong houses are used. I would remark that this also is one of the forcible necessities resorted to for the preservation of the order, and as recourse against the dangerous consequences of this traffic.”


“Wherever possible, such as in Saint-Louis and Gorée (Senegal), James (Gambia), and Bance (Sierra Leone), the Europeans' barracoons were located on islands, which made escapes and attacks more difficult. In some areas, as soon as local people approached the boats, the crew is ordered to take up arms, the cannons are aimed, and the fuses are lighted . . . One must, without any hesitation, shoot at them and not spare them. The loss of the vessel and the life of the crew are at stake.”


“The heavily fortified forts and barracoons attest to the Europeans' distrust and apprehension. They had to protect themselves, as Jean-Baptiste Durand of the Compagnie du Sénégal explained, from the foreign vessels and from the Negroes living in the country."


“These precautions notwithstanding, in the eighteenth century, Fort Saint-Joseph on the Senegal River was attacked and all commerce was interrupted for six years. Several conspiracies and actual revolts by captives erupted on Gorée Island and resulted in the death of the governor and several soldiers. In addition, the crews of quite a few slave ships were killed on the River Gambia; in Sierra Leone, people sacked the captives' quarters of the infamous trader John Ormond. Similar incidents occurred in other parts of the African coast. Written records document how Africans on shore attacked more than a hundred ships.


Some Western slavers maintained occult centers in their barracoons, staffed by men they paid to work on the captives, sometimes with medicinal plants. The objective was to kill any spirit of rebellion, to tame the detainees, and make them accept their fate. The existence of these centers shows the extent of the precautions taken by slavers to prevent rebellions on land and during the Middle Passage: shackles and guns controlled the body, while the spirit was broken.


But revolts on slave ships, although extremely difficult to organize and conduct, were numerous. About 420 revolts have been documented in slavers' papers, and they do not represent the totality. It is estimated that 100,000 Africans died in uprisings on the coast or during the Middle Passage. The fear of revolts resulted in additional costs for the slavers: larger crews, heavy weapons, and barricades. About 18 percent of the costs of the Middle Passage were incurred due to measures to thwart uprisings, and the captives who rose up saved, according to estimates, one million Africans from deportation by driving up the slavers' expenses.”

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

600K white men died to end slavery!

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.

So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?

The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what are the Democrats spending money on?

Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...

Summary ==> Being the nanny state.

Wonder why people need all those things ?

Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster. When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?

We can only hope.

Helping people who need help.

Republican “plantations” are called prisons.

Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.

I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.

All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.

That is so myopic and sad.

Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons

They fill them with non violent offenders

Well, that's why you stay with two sentences....

Because you only have 20 total in you playbook.

You seem to want to avoid overusing them.

Left Wing states don't build prisons ? Really ?

Maybe that is why Alcatrez is a landmark ?

 

[IM2]

It's funny to watch these republicans lash out on frustration because blacks refuse to join their party despite all the tall tales they keep trying to tell about democrats. Ethos is having butthole triplets trying to stop blacks from supporting Biden. It's not that we are big fans of Biden, but we must get trump the fuck out of the white house.

 

[NoNukes]

Yeah? So? Doesn't alter the reality.

Yes it does.

If you get your bearings turned around, and you watch a sunrise, and you believe the sun is coming up in the west, does that alter the reality that the sun came up in the east?

Hint: No.

You do not have a reply so you come up with something idiotic that you think sounds intelligent. Typical Daveman

 

[rightwinger]

600K white men died to end slavery!

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.

So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?

The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.

It means it was unnecessary like many wars.

 

[rightwinger]

It's funny to watch these republicans lash out on frustration because blacks refuse to join their party despite all the tall tales they keep trying to tell about democrats. Ethos is having butthole triplets trying to stop blacks from supporting Biden. It's not that we are big fans of Biden, but we must get trump the fuck out of the white house.

Republicans made a choice and it wasn’t the minority vote.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

600K white men died to end slavery!

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.

So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?

The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.

It means it was unnecessary like many wars.

Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.

 

[Correll]

Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?

It appears that you "assumed" what I think.

Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.

If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.


It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.


If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.

That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.

No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.

It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.

Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.

It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.

Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.

Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.

Except it wasn't, as I've shown. And like the rest, the whole lie of the Southern Strategy, is all just libs spewing shit from their face anuses.

 

[rightwinger]

They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.

How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.

Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.

So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?

The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.

It means it was unnecessary like many wars.

Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.

The thing is the south panicked and overplayed a weak hand. Lincoln did not have the political power to end slavery. Best he could have done is stop the spread to new states.

Instead of a gradual loss of slavery and compensation, the south lost them all in four years.

 

[rightwinger]

If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.


It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.


If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.

That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.

No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.

It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.

Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.

It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.

Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.

Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.

Except it wasn't, as I've shown. And like the rest, the whole lie of the Southern Strategy, is all just libs spewing shit from their face anuses.

Southern Strategy worked.
The South is still voting Republican

 

[Correll]

And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.


You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.


You are a dishonest assshole.


Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.

Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act

Make of it what you want

Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.


YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.


His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.


Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.


Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".

Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
I merely corrected you on it

Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.


Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.


HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.


That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,


is you being a race baiting asshole.

Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat

With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis of dem control of the South, was broken.

This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.


Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?

 

[Correll]

If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.


It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.


If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.

That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.

No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.

It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.

Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.

It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.

Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.

You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".


That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.


I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.


"Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.


IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.

They already look at it as a very bad turning point for the US

It marked the rise of the American Conservative movement

Depends on the historians. I'm sure plenty of them, share your vision of the future, of an America that is a racist, violence torn Third World hellhole One Party State, and those historians I'm sure consider the rise of American Conservatives, to be a problem for their agenda.

 

[rightwinger]

Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act

Make of it what you want

Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.


YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.


His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.


Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.


Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".

Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
I merely corrected you on it

Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.


Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.


HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.


That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,


is you being a race baiting asshole.

Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat

With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis of dem control of the South, was broken.

This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.


Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?

Show your math

 

[Correll]

If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.


It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.


If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.

That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.

No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.

It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.

Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.

It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.

Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.

You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".


That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.


I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.


"Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.


IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.

You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.

And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat in the future as a "bad turning point.

If they have even a shred of moral decency.

And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,


because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.


It is how you are dividing America.


Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.


BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.



Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.


But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock on black votes.



You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.

 

[Correll]

That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.

No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.

It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.

Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.

It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.

Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.

Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.

You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.


You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.

What I said was quite specific.

Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.

If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.



You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.