The first couple portrayed as apes

[Flopper]

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century. He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party. Nice try though. And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks. "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against. In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

This is the point, I was trying make. The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies. However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party. Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty. Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black. Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.

In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.

Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes. It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation. To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks. Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them. Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.

 

[S.J.]

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against. In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

This is the point, I was trying make. The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies. However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party. Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty. Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black. Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.

In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.

Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes. It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation. To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks. Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them. Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.

Bullshit! Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed. This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history. Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.

 

[wavingrl]

31 pages.

 

[Vigilante]

You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?

Putin would not ever humiliate Palin on the world stage as he has done Obama

Dood, Pee Wee Herman could humiliate Palin in a high school gymnasium. She's like the Jerry Lewis of politics.

And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.

We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!

Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!

 

[Flopper]

Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes. It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation. To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks. Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them. Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.

Bullshit! Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed. This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history. Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party. Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red. Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro’s LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago

 

[Pogo]

31 pages.

24 for me, but about 20 of them are off the topic.

Must be inconvenient.

 

[Pogo]

You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?

Dood, Pee Wee Herman could humiliate Palin in a high school gymnasium. She's like the Jerry Lewis of politics.

And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.

We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!

Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!

That isn't even from this thread.

Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...

 

[Pogo]

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks. Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them. Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.

Bullshit! Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed. This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history. Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party. Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red. Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro’s LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago

Inevitably it comes down to this, which has been posted a hundred thousdand times and somehow gets consistently ignored:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
(Wiki CRA64 page)

Pattern by party -- None.
Pattern by region -- Definitely.

That's history, folks. Spin all you like, it ain't going away.

(/offtopic)

 

[wavingrl]

If I were to make a list of 'My Least Favorite Things'--discussing the struggle for civil rights would go at the very top.

A war was fought--some consensus that change was needed. The process has not been pleasant.

 

[S.J.]

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks. Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them. Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.

Bullshit! Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed. This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history. Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party. Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red. Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro’s LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit! Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster. It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed. This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history. Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party. Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red. Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro’s LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Then why don't you just give it a rest? Ain't nobody buying.

 

[S.J.]

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party. Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red. Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro’s LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Then why don't you just give it a rest? Ain't nobody buying.

Your maturity level continues to diminish with each and every post, as your lack of substance continues to grow.

 

[Iceweasel]

Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.

The True History of the Democratic Racist Party

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

 

[Pogo]

Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.

The True History of the Democratic Racist Party

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
-- Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article​

This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.

A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.

''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.

Buchanan apparently disagrees.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
-- Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article​

This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.

A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.

''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​

Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.

Buchanan apparently disagrees.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
-- Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article​

This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.

A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.

''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​

Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.

OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.

Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source. What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.

 

[Pogo]

Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.

"Him" refers to ... who?

Exploiting racism doesn't require actually being racist oneself. It just requires a preference for opportunism over ethics. A political party (either one, depending on the era) baiting a certain population with keywords and implications doesn't have to follow or believe in racism itself; they just have to be the ones to wink alluringly at their target. That's what political posturing is all about.

 

[Iceweasel]

OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.

Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source. What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.

I posted the source and you think yours proves he's a liar? Good luck with the trolling.....

 

[Pogo]

OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.

Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source. What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.

I posted the source and you think yours proves he's a liar? Good luck with the trolling.....

You posted the words "Buchanan apparently disagrees". That was it.
I need something with a bit more meat on it. Maybe you don't but for me, simply posting three words on the internet falls a bit short of what I'd call "existence".

And your original post was nothing more than a link to a post on another message board (illegal here btw) and is entirely unsourced. And the whole thing's written by some political message board poster-- not by Pat Buchanan.
Desperate points call for desperate measures.

 

[Vigilante]

You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?

And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.

We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!

Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!

That isn't even from this thread.

Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...

No, it's not Pogo Stick, it's meant to show the fucking indignation of you and the others in here is BULLSHIT... PaintYourShack can make fun of a Down's Syndrome baby, yet all you scum can think about is RACISM from a Belgium picture. Here, I always thought you bastards were for the children I even remember your president saying



Just do anything to save that one child, yet make fun of them is fine with you hypocrites. You're a deranged little man, that concentrates on a small fact that SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS founded the KKK, and would go on for 100 posts about it, when the FACT was right before your face. Yes, I'll keep harvesting this little incident, simply to show NEW FORUM members, just what you subversives are all about!