The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[francoHFW]

There were 6 Pubs who WANTED to vote for ACA- stalled it for months with ''negotiations''...Nice bizarro planet the dupes have lol...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, there was marked progress in the South going Red between 1968 and 1972, thank you for amplifying the success of the Southern Strategy over time. Also, in both 1964 and 1968, the Republicans won Southern states they hadn't won since Reconstruction.

I didn't amplify anything. Had the Southern Strategy worked, Stein, he would have won every last one of them. It backfired when 6 Southern States failed to vote for Nixon in 1968. The Southern Strategy failed. You have three instances of that happening, including 1968.

By 1976, almost every State governor in the South was a Democrat. In America they held 37 governorships. It wasn't until 1994 when Republicans turned tables and took 30 governorships. So, if it worked, why weren't there more Republican governors in that 22 year timespan from 72 to 94?

Gaining states your party hadn't previously won in almost a century, and then going on to win the majority or the entirety of a region in following elections from there on isn't failure by any stretch.

Atwater was a political genius, and you are nothing but a historical revisionist.

As for Governor's races, the Atwater strategy was a national election strategy. Didn't involve governor's races. Apples and Oranges.

Nice. Resorting to ad hominem when you have zero argument. I disproved your little theory about Southern Strategy, and I ripped you apart on Jesse Helms. Gubernatorial elections are good indicators of where a state may ultimately lean in a national election, any junior strategist would know this. You then lied to me, and your cred with me is now zero. It wasn't until a speech by Richard Nixon in KANSAS in nineteen freaking seventy, that Jesse Helms decided to defect. He said nothing of the strategy being a contributing factor to his defection.

Revisionist? You sir/madam are a liar.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also in 1968, Nixon did not win the south. The Strategy failed.

Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey, while Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted for George Wallace.

Yes, there was marked progress in the South going Red between 1968 and 1972, thank you for amplifying the success of the Southern Strategy over time. Also, in both 1964 and 1968, the Republicans won Southern states they hadn't won since Reconstruction.

One other thing, in 1928, Republicans won four Southern States. In 1952 they won four, in 1956, they won six, and in 1960, they won three. In 1964, they won five southern states in voting for Barry Goldwater, this was during Lyndon Johnson. Was Barry Goldwater instituting some sort of Southern Strategy? Was Dwight D. Eisenhower conducting some sort of strategy too? This means that the Republicans were winning some Southern States long before the Southern Strategy.

 

[Steinlight]

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

He left due to the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Atwater, he said so himself.

Link here:Documenting the American South: Oral Histories of the American South

From your link

"I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party.

But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters."

-Jesse Helms

Nail in the coffin. You lied through your teeth. The Southern Strategy, nor Lee Atwater were mentioned in that interview. Don't you dare insult my intelligence.

I didn't lie through my teeth, I don't think you understand what the Southern Strategy was. It was a strategy by the GOP to win over disaffected southern conservative democrats like Jesse Helms, as shown by the quote. He felt disaffected with the liberal direction of the Democratic Party. Come one man, use some common sense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He left due to the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Atwater, he said so himself.

Link here:Documenting the American South: Oral Histories of the American South

From your link

"I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party.

But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters."

-Jesse Helms

Nail in the coffin. You lied through your teeth. The Southern Strategy, nor Lee Atwater were mentioned in that interview. Don't you dare insult my intelligence.

I didn't lie through my teeth, I don't think you understand what the Southern Strategy was. It was a strategy by the GOP to win over disaffected southern conservative democrats like Jesse Helms, as shown by the quote. He felt disaffected with the liberal direction of the Democratic Party. Come one man, use some common sense.

Sorry. He didn't say anything about the Southern Strategy. You specifically said he MENTIONED IT as in "he said so himself." Now if you will excuse me.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'd love just one liberal to explain to me how they can embrace hard core muslim extremists like the Iranian government who hang gays with regularity.

But hell's bells Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty expresses his opinion that he doesn't understand how anyone could prefer an asshole to a vagina and the progressives lose their freaking minds.

Embracing Iran isn't a "liberal" thing...it's an Obama administration thing. It has strategic value as Iran is practically the last bastion of stability to the middle east and it's beyond obvious that Iran will become the key partner to Iraq going forward. Also neither Iran or the USA wants to see the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan ever again.

It's heavily influenced by the military, and also the regime change in Iran.

You lost me at "bastion of stability." Last time I checked, the Middle East is a tinderbox waiting to go off.

Its been going off for centuries dipshit

 

[Steinlight]

I didn't amplify anything. Had the Southern Strategy worked, Stein, he would have won every last one of them. It backfired when 6 Southern States failed to vote for Nixon in 1968. The Southern Strategy failed. You have three instances of that happening, including 1968.

By 1976, almost every State governor in the South was a Democrat. In America they held 37 governorships. It wasn't until 1994 when Republicans turned tables and took 30 governorships. So, if it worked, why weren't there more Republican governors in that 22 year timespan from 72 to 94?

Gaining states your party hadn't previously won in almost a century, and then going on to win the majority or the entirety of a region in following elections from there on isn't failure by any stretch.

Atwater was a political genius, and you are nothing but a historical revisionist.

As for Governor's races, the Atwater strategy was a national election strategy. Didn't involve governor's races. Apples and Oranges.

Nice. Resorting to ad hominem when you have zero argument. I disproved your little theory about Southern Strategy, and I ripped you apart on Jesse Helms. Gubernatorial elections are good indicators of where a state may ultimately lean in a national election, any junior strategist would know this. You then lied to me, and your cred with me is now zero. It wasn't until a speech by Richard Nixon in KANSAS in nineteen freaking seventy, that Jesse Helms decided to defect. He said nothing of the strategy being a contributing factor to his defection.

Revisionist? You sir/madam are a liar.

You did no such thing. The Southern Strategy won the majority or entirety of the South in every election from 1972 on(minus 1976); and in 1968, it won southern states that had not been won by the GOP in near a century. Calling this a political failure [is historical revisionism.

And how did you rip me apart on Jesse Helms? You never even had a point really on Jesse Helms. I was responding to Bripat who asked for an example of a conservative southern democrat who went republican, I provided it. You said it "didn't count" because he changed parties in 1970.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm still waiting for some factual rebuttals here. All I've gotten is a steady stream of trolls. Isn't there anybody out there who has the guts to challenge my argument?

Its a fucking partisan hack argument. It doesn't deserve to be held up as a legit opinion.

 

[Steinlight]

From your link

"I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party.

But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters."

-Jesse Helms

Nail in the coffin. You lied through your teeth. The Southern Strategy, nor Lee Atwater were mentioned in that interview. Don't you dare insult my intelligence.

I didn't lie through my teeth, I don't think you understand what the Southern Strategy was. It was a strategy by the GOP to win over disaffected southern conservative democrats like Jesse Helms, as shown by the quote. He felt disaffected with the liberal direction of the Democratic Party. Come one man, use some common sense.

Sorry. He didn't say anything about the Southern Strategy. You specifically said he MENTIONED IT as in "he said so himself." Now if you will excuse me.

You are taking things too literally and need to infer a bit more. He doesn't need to say the words, "southern strategy", that makes no sense man. The whole point is he represented a trend of "disaffected"(his word) southern conservatives who lost touch with the Democrat Party. This was the Southern Strategy, bringing in the disaffected southern conservative.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe in 2014 African Americans will vote 95% GOP

Maybe tonight you can address my thread with an actual argument.

If it had a point that might be an idea.
At the end of the day here's a couple of things.
1 ) Bill Maher is a libertarian, not liberal, there is a difference.
2) A few talking heads on the radio or TV does not represent the liberal movement - ie, if they show intolerance, that doesn't mean they are representing the DEMs.
3) The whole OP is a cheap shot...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gaining states your party hadn't previously won in almost a century, and then going on to win the majority or the entirety of a region in following elections from there on isn't failure by any stretch.

Atwater was a political genius, and you are nothing but a historical revisionist.

As for Governor's races, the Atwater strategy was a national election strategy. Didn't involve governor's races. Apples and Oranges.

Nice. Resorting to ad hominem when you have zero argument. I disproved your little theory about Southern Strategy, and I ripped you apart on Jesse Helms. Gubernatorial elections are good indicators of where a state may ultimately lean in a national election, any junior strategist would know this. You then lied to me, and your cred with me is now zero. It wasn't until a speech by Richard Nixon in KANSAS in nineteen freaking seventy, that Jesse Helms decided to defect. He said nothing of the strategy being a contributing factor to his defection.

Revisionist? You sir/madam are a liar.

You did no such thing. The Southern Strategy won the majority or entirety of the South in every election from 1972 on(minus 1976); and in 1964 and 1968, it won southern states that had not been won by the GOP in near a century. Calling this a political failure [is historical revisionism.

And how did you rip me apart on Jesse Helms? You never even had a point really on Jesse Helms. I was responding to Bripat who asked for an example of a conservative southern democrat who went republican, I provided it. You said it "didn't count" because he changed parties in 1970.

You're jumping all over the place. You then said just a few minutes ago that "Republicans were winning states they hadn't won since Reconstruction" the problem with that was that they have been picking up southern states off and on since 1928, which was well after Reconstruction, or 1928, 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1964.

Jesse Helms never mentioned the Southern Strategy as a reason for his defection. His main reason for defecting in his own words was to "restore the two party system." It wasn't until 1970 before he even changed parties. Had he felt so fervently about it, he would have joined Thurmond in '64. We can go about this all night if you want, Stein, or you can admit you lied to me. There is an inconsistency with what Helms said and what you think he said.

Once again you need to prove that Helms defection was a result of Southern Strategy. Without trying to spin one of his interviews. You yourself just said it was an "electoral" strategy, which leads me to assume it has nothing to do with seats changing hands on Capitol Hill. That's political strategy, not election strategy. No way, Jose.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didn't lie through my teeth, I don't think you understand what the Southern Strategy was. It was a strategy by the GOP to win over disaffected southern conservative democrats like Jesse Helms, as shown by the quote. He felt disaffected with the liberal direction of the Democratic Party. Come one man, use some common sense.

Sorry. He didn't say anything about the Southern Strategy. You specifically said he MENTIONED IT as in "he said so himself." Now if you will excuse me.

You are taking things too literally and need to infer a bit more. He doesn't need to say the words, "southern strategy", that makes no sense man. The whole point is he represented a trend of "disaffected"(his word) southern conservatives who lost touch with the Democrat Party. This was the Southern Strategy, bringing in the disaffected southern conservative.

He specifically mentioned a "speech" which most likely had nothing to do with Southern Strategy, in Kansas. That's Midwest. As you know, Presidential candidates tailor their speeches to the demographics in a respective state during a campaign. It's been a long held practice. His party was moving too far to the left, Nixon didn't move them there, they moved themselves there after the Civil Rights Act. You cannot contend that the party's shift to the far left and his defection had anything to do with the Southern Strategy.

Once again, the Southern Strategy was an electoral strategy, not a political one. The strategy was specifically intended for VOTERS not POLITICIANS. You know that, I know that.

 

[Steinlight]

Nice. Resorting to ad hominem when you have zero argument. I disproved your little theory about Southern Strategy, and I ripped you apart on Jesse Helms. Gubernatorial elections are good indicators of where a state may ultimately lean in a national election, any junior strategist would know this. You then lied to me, and your cred with me is now zero. It wasn't until a speech by Richard Nixon in KANSAS in nineteen freaking seventy, that Jesse Helms decided to defect. He said nothing of the strategy being a contributing factor to his defection.

Revisionist? You sir/madam are a liar.

You did no such thing. The Southern Strategy won the majority or entirety of the South in every election from 1972 on(minus 1976); and in 1964 and 1968, it won southern states that had not been won by the GOP in near a century. Calling this a political failure [is historical revisionism.

And how did you rip me apart on Jesse Helms? You never even had a point really on Jesse Helms. I was responding to Bripat who asked for an example of a conservative southern democrat who went republican, I provided it. You said it "didn't count" because he changed parties in 1970.

You're jumping all over the place. You then said just a few minutes ago that "Republicans were winning states they hadn't won since Reconstruction" the problem with that was that they have been picking up southern states off and on since 1928, which was well after Reconstruction, or 1928, 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1964.

Jesse Helms never mentioned the Southern Strategy as a reason for his defection. His main reason for defecting in his own words was to "restore the two party system." It wasn't until 1970 before he even changed parties. Had he felt so fervently about it, he would have joined Thurmond in '64. We can go about this all night if you want, Stein, or you can admit you lied to me. There is an inconsistency with what Helms said and what you think he said.

Once again you need to prove that Helms defection was a result of Southern Strategy. Without trying to spin one of his interviews. You yourself just said it was an "electoral" strategy, which leads me to assume it has nothing to do with seats changing hands on Capitol Hill. That's political strategy, not election strategy. No way, Jose.

In 1928, some southerners voted against an anti-prohibitionist Northeast Catholic Democrat in Al Smith. In 1952-1964, southern conservative democrats started to vote against liberal pro civil rights democrats. In 1968, the Southern Strategy was enacted, and they won more Southern States than they ever had since Reconstruction. And from 1972 on(minus 1976), the GOP won the majority or the entirety of the South. Atwater is no doubt the most brilliant political strategist of the 20th Century. I say this as an independent observer, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

And like I said before, he doesn't need to say the words "southern strategy", in his reasoning, that is ridiculous. His reasoning is that he was disaffected with the liberal direction of the Democrat Party. The Southern Strategy was to pick off disaffected conservative southern voters. It is very clear and very obvious to an honest observer and/or someone with half a brain.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stein? It's okay, you can go to sleep now. Just let it go. You lost this debate, the more you argue , the more I repeat myself, and the more into the ground I drive your argument.

One thing on my side was that the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began that seismic shift in the South. Democrats were suffering devastating defeats due to the Civil Rights movement, with the coup de grace coming with the signage of that act. This alone started Democrats switching to the Republican party on the national level. Mind you this was ALL before Nixon was ever even heard of as a presidential contender. However, these voters remained loyal to Democrats at the state and local level, this continued through the 1970's and 80's. For any strategy to work effectively, it not only needs to work on the national level, but on the state and local level as well.

Thus, Southern Strategy played no part in his defection, but instead had more to do with what happened in 1964 if anything. No, he doesn't need to say it specifically. However, he never even passively referred to it. That, Stein, is the end of your argument.

 

[Steinlight]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. Any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

I didn't. You didn't want to discuss it. The original challenge still stands if you wish to ever debate the topic, which I have been prepared to do for the past three hours, Stein. I let you get off on your anti-southern crusade on purpose, simply to show the rest of this board that you have no argument pertaining to the the original topic.

Now, disprove the OP or leave it. They attack those they claim to defend, yet continue to champion them as their own. One woman is better than another. One black man is better than the other, one religion is better than another. If one of their own ever steps out of line, they are viciously attacked and disowned on the spot.

The NAACP barring Deneen Borelli from their 104th Convention speaks to that. Pro life democrats weren't invited to speak at the DNC last year. They barred the words "god given", "Israel" and "Jerusalem" from their platform as an obvious sleight at people of faith, namely Jews and Christians. Liberals promote acceptance of women in the marketplace, but John Edwards in 2007 went on to refer to Ann Coulter as a "she devil" while in the same breath accusing her of using "hateful language."

Glenn Beck was attacked by a Van Jones backed group for saying that Obama himself was racist and "held a disdain for white people. That group was named "Color of Change." They got a number of sponsors to back out of supporting Beck's show on Fox News. However this didn't stop this same group from marketing shirts that said "Kanye Was Right" in reference to a remark about the 2005 relief effort during Hurricane Katrina, where Kanye West said "We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! ... George Bush doesn’t care about black people" which as in and of itself a racist comment.

Even still, they preach of pay equality, but Obama and Biden both were caught paying their female staffers less than than men. I can go on and on. And you want to maintain that they're tolerant? Please. I have you far outclassed. I am a research nut, stein, I am actively pursuing relevant information, even during arguments. I've given several more examples of liberal hypocrisy, in addition to my OP.

I am simply asking you to disprove my contention point by point. It appears to me that you are too lazy, or too scared to. I had plenty of other links to make my points, to be honest.

 

[Steinlight]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

I didn't. You didn't want to discuss it. The original challenge still stands if you wish to ever debate the topic, which I have been prepared to do for the past three hours, Stein. I let you get off on your anti-southern crusade on purpose, simply to show the rest of this board that you have no argument pertaining to the the original topic.

Now, disprove the OP or leave it. They attack those they claim to defend, yet continue to champion them as their own. One woman is better than another. One black man is better than the other, one religion is better than another. If one of their own ever steps out of line, they are viciously attacked and disowned on the spot.

The NAACP barring Deneen Borelli from their 104th Convention speaks to that. Pro life democrats weren't invited to speak at the DNC last year. They barred the words "god given", "Israel" and "Jerusalem" from their platform as an obvious sleight at people of faith, namely Jews and Christians. Liberals promote acceptance of women in the marketplace, but John Edwards in 2007 went on to refer to Ann Coulter as a "she devil" while in the same breath accusing her of using "hateful language."

Glenn Beck was attacked by a Van Jones backed group for saying that Obama himself was racist and "held a disdain for white people. That group was named "Color of Change. They got a number of sponsors to back out of supporting Beck's show on Fox News. However this didn't stop this same group from marketing shirts that said "Kanye Was Right" in reference to a remark about the 2005 relief effort during Hurricane Katrina, where Kanye West said "We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! ... George Bush doesn’t care about black people."

I can go on and on. And you want to maintain that they're tolerant?

I am simply asking you do disprove my contention point by point. It appears to me that you are too lazy, or too scared to. I had plenty of other links to make my points, to be honest.

That is absurd to suggest I am anti-Southern, I have no problem with the South at all. I just can't stand historical revisionists like yourself. Shame on you.

First off, the NAACP is a non-partisan organization, that is a non sequitur argument. Keep your arguments straight.

Ok, on to the Democrats...

Also, you are simply wrong, the DNC Platform stated that Jerusalem was the undisputed capital of Israel. There was no slight may towards Jews, that is absurd.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform
Not mentioning the phrase "god-given" doesn't make one anti-Christian, no more than not saying "allah" in the platform makes them anti-muslim. Secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism. Like it or not, America has a secular government, and America is a religiously pluralistic society.

Democrats attack Republicans, and Republicans attack Democrats. This is American political kabuki theatre, no surprise here. Your quotes don't show that Democrats intolerant of women as a gender, blacks as a race, or christians as a religion. No fair-minded person could see this. Just like whites, males, and non-Christians, women, blacks, and Christians are open to political criticism. Why should the groups you mention get special treatment?

I actually voted for Romney, primarily based on foreign policy concerns(particularly on the issue of Iran and Israel). But your attacks are nonsensical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing you have done is abandoned your original topic, claiming that liberals are somehow "hypocrites" that infringe on religious liberties and on the rights of blacks and women, and have yet to provide proof.

You then proceeded to engage in historical revisionism, denying the success of the Southern Strategy and the movement of disaffected southern conservatives in the Democrat party to the GOP(like Jesse Helms), saying he "doesn't count".

You have won nothing. any fair-minded person will see this. You are just long winded.

I didn't. You didn't want to discuss it. The original challenge still stands if you wish to ever debate the topic, which I have been prepared to do for the past three hours, Stein. I let you get off on your anti-southern crusade on purpose, simply to show the rest of this board that you have no argument pertaining to the the original topic.

Now, disprove the OP or leave it. They attack those they claim to defend, yet continue to champion them as their own. One woman is better than another. One black man is better than the other, one religion is better than another. If one of their own ever steps out of line, they are viciously attacked and disowned on the spot.

The NAACP barring Deneen Borelli from their 104th Convention speaks to that. Pro life democrats weren't invited to speak at the DNC last year. They barred the words "god given", "Israel" and "Jerusalem" from their platform as an obvious sleight at people of faith, namely Jews and Christians. Liberals promote acceptance of women in the marketplace, but John Edwards in 2007 went on to refer to Ann Coulter as a "she devil" while in the same breath accusing her of using "hateful language."

Glenn Beck was attacked by a Van Jones backed group for saying that Obama himself was racist and "held a disdain for white people. That group was named "Color of Change. They got a number of sponsors to back out of supporting Beck's show on Fox News. However this didn't stop this same group from marketing shirts that said "Kanye Was Right" in reference to a remark about the 2005 relief effort during Hurricane Katrina, where Kanye West said "We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us! ... George Bush doesn’t care about black people."

I can go on and on. And you want to maintain that they're tolerant?

I am simply asking you do disprove my contention point by point. It appears to me that you are too lazy, or too scared to. I had plenty of other links to make my points, to be honest.

That is absurd to suggest I am anti-Southern, I have no problem with the South at all. I just can't stand historical revisionists like yourself. Shame on you.

First off, the NAACP is a non-partisan organization, that is a non sequitur argument. Keep your arguments straight.

Ok, on to the Democrats...

Also, you are simply wrong, the DNC Platform stated that Jerusalem was the undisputed capital of Israel. There was no slight may towards Jews, that is absurd.
Documenting the American South: Oral Histories of the American South

Not mentioning the phrase "god-given" doesn't make one anti-Christian, no more than not saying "allah" in the platform makes them anti-muslim. Secularism is not anti-christian, secularism allows for religious pluralism. Like it or not, America has a secular government, and America is a religiously pluralistic society.

Democrats attack Republicans, and Republicans attack Democrats. This is American political kabuki theatre, no surprise here. Your quotes don't show that Democrats intolerant of women as a gender, blacks as a race, or christians as a religion. No fair-minded person could see this. Just like Whites, Males, and non-Christians, women, blacks, and Christians are open to political criticism. Why should the groups you mention get special treatment?

I actually voted for Romney, primarily based on foreign policy concerns(particularly on the issue of Iran and Israel). But your attacks are nonsensical.

Sorry, they did remove Jerusalem from their platform. As well as "god given" and Israel.

Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ?God-Given? From Platform - ABC News

24 hours later they reinstated it, with applied pressure from the Romney Campaign.

Democrats reinstate "God" and Jerusalem language in party platform - CBS News

Secondly, since nearly 90% of Blacks vote democratic, it is safe to assume the NAACP is democratic, and thus partisan.

Black conservative Deneen Borelli blacklisted from NAACP Convention

Thirdly, you're attempting to generalize. We don't do that in the arena, stein. These are specific examples of Liberal intolerance to demographics they claim to support and defend. If not through action, by words.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity. If it were intended to allow for a "pluralism" of religions, why the hostility towards Christians?

Democrats support women, but attack them if they are of the opposing party. They do the same with black men and women alike whom they claim to support. "How dare they buck the trend?!"

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm going to bed. You can argue a brick wall for all I care Stein. It is quite obvious you were here to do everything but argue my points. I'll pick this back up on the flip side, that's if another conservative doesn't get to you first.