They've Always Been 'Racists'

[Mac1958]

Yet another uneducated stupid Trumpette....

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

 

[Norman]

Yet another uneducated stupid Trumpette....

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

Because no one gives a fuck about what some random nobody does. If the people are truly that racist, surely there are some actual racist policy goals and high profile people put in power by these racists like with democrats?

If you can not name one that is kind of a failure given that the list of racist high profile leftists has no end.

 

[Mac1958]

Yet another uneducated stupid Trumpette....

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

Because no one gives a fuck about what some random nobody does. If the people are truly that racist, surely there are some actual racist policy goals and high profile people put in power by these racists like with democrats?

What "random nobodies" do in real life, every day, is the problem. I'm amazed you don't know that. Or maybe I'm not.

I'm not trying to convince you or the other Trumpsters here of anything. No more than I would try to convince a Regressive Lefty of anything. No more than I would try to convince a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, or a protest sign-holding Westboro Baptist Church member of anything. I know better.

Just get it all out in one post, willya? This denial crap is tedious.
.

 

[Norman]

Yet another uneducated stupid Trumpette....

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

Because no one gives a fuck about what some random nobody does. If the people are truly that racist, surely there are some actual racist policy goals and high profile people put in power by these racists like with democrats?

What "random nobodies" do in real life, every day, is the problem. I'm amazed you don't know that. Or maybe I'm not.

I'm not trying to convince you or the other Trumpsters here of anything. No more than I would try to convince a Regressive Lefty of anything. No more than I would try to convince a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, or a protest sign-holding Westboro Baptist Church member of anything. I know better.

Just get it all out in one post, willya? This denial crap is tedious.
.

So what do these random nobodies do? Make stupid comments? A big deal... democrats discriminate on people based on race and skin color, as an official policy, and ALL of them support this, save few outliers. Of course it goes a lot deeper, they discriminate and try to get anyone who does not tow their line thrown out of their jobs, but anyway...

 

[Mac1958]

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

Because no one gives a fuck about what some random nobody does. If the people are truly that racist, surely there are some actual racist policy goals and high profile people put in power by these racists like with democrats?

What "random nobodies" do in real life, every day, is the problem. I'm amazed you don't know that. Or maybe I'm not.

I'm not trying to convince you or the other Trumpsters here of anything. No more than I would try to convince a Regressive Lefty of anything. No more than I would try to convince a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, or a protest sign-holding Westboro Baptist Church member of anything. I know better.

Just get it all out in one post, willya? This denial crap is tedious.
.

So what do these random nobodies do? Make stupid comments? A big deal... democrats discriminate on people based on race and skin color, as an official policy, and ALL of them support this, save few outliers. Of course it goes a lot deeper, they discriminate and try to get anyone who does not tow their line thrown out of their jobs, but anyway...

Great, then there's no problem.
.

 

[Theowl32]

Huh, Muhammad Ali against integration



Malcolm X calling out white patronizing racist liberals like Mac for being the racists they are.



Chris Rock identifying the difference and how most of us look at the race issue. Especially a minority like me who grew up in the hood and far from the land of gentry and ivory that Mac grew up in.



He along with every other patronizing racist on the left will avoid all of those and will cling to identity politics.

That is all they are. Not really worth addressing. I asked and have asked him if patronizing minorities for political expediency or monetary gain was racist.

Why would we suppose he avoided that question?

 

[alang1216]

Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.

And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

My answer would be a zero chance and that is exactly what didn't happen. What did happen was the racist Dems, AKA Dixiecrats, didn't change their thinking only their party allegiance. The GOP under Goldwater became the party of States Rights, just what the Dixiecrats wanted to maintain their Jim Crow laws, while the Dems became the party of Civil Rights, just what the Dixiecrats hated.

Rewriting history again?

Wrong......that lie can't bear the internet.......

the lie of the Southern Strategy....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

The actual story referenced by Williams...

see page 4, bottom of first column...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I'm not sure how Nixon crept into the thread but here are the actual facts:

Goldwater carried six states: Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and his home state of Arizona.[141] Goldwater's strong showing in the south is largely due to his support of the white southern view on civil rights: that states should be able to control their own laws without federal intervention.
​

The South was the bastion of the Dixiecrats and their racism. Their move to the GOP was dramatic and permanent and puts the lie to the notion that the Dems have always been the party of racism.

There was no move by racists into the Republican party you doofus......they stayed democrats. all of the racists were supporters, friends or mentors to the likes of al gore and bill clinton.......and the black racists all supported obama....farakhan, jeremiah wright, sharpton, the black panthers...

the party of racism and hate has been and always will be the democrat party.

So why did the South go from solidly Dem to solidly GOP in 1964? Why are they still solidly GOP?

 

[alang1216]

Black, white, whatever....

...why is skin color always the target of the Democrats/Liberals???



6. “During a recent segment about a supermarket shooting in Kentucky, CNN host Don Lemon said that “the biggest terror threat in this country is white men.”

“So,” he said, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?”
CNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying white men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country’


Get that?

"...stop demonizing people....except whites..."

This from a poster with a thread titled:They've Always Been 'Racists'
You should Google the word 'hypocrite'.

The real racist...LBJ v Goldwater....they guy who wasn't the racist..

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights


More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

Yet it was LBJ that voted for it and Goldwater voted against it. Why didn't Goldwater vote for it and let the courts decide? It would certainly have sent a different message.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I don't think they're stupid per se. Bigotry can infect perfectly intelligent people, unfortunately.

What they are, is afraid to admit to what they really are. Even though they're obviously not very good at hiding it.

Bigotry and ideology are very powerful things. When they enable each other like this, it only gets worse and uglier.
.

¨
Still waiting for you to post about a high profile right winger making overt racist statements like happened in democrat debate stage.

Surely you can find at least one?

Why would I bother?

And why are you pretending that racism is only a mindset of "high profile people"?
.

Because no one gives a fuck about what some random nobody does. If the people are truly that racist, surely there are some actual racist policy goals and high profile people put in power by these racists like with democrats?

What "random nobodies" do in real life, every day, is the problem. I'm amazed you don't know that. Or maybe I'm not.

I'm not trying to convince you or the other Trumpsters here of anything. No more than I would try to convince a Regressive Lefty of anything. No more than I would try to convince a crazed teenager on the streets of Damascus, or a protest sign-holding Westboro Baptist Church member of anything. I know better.

Just get it all out in one post, willya? This denial crap is tedious.
.

So what do these random nobodies do? Make stupid comments? A big deal... democrats discriminate on people based on race and skin color, as an official policy, and ALL of them support this, save few outliers. Of course it goes a lot deeper, they discriminate and try to get anyone who does not tow their line thrown out of their jobs, but anyway...

I’ve noticed Mac1958 refuses to stay engaged with anyone who makes too much sense...He’s terrified, he will not allow you to discredit his “racist bigots”, “Trumpsters”, “wingers” three-trick pony show.
Take note of his weird concessions after a series of exchanges of dialogue...note how he senses when he’s backed in the corner with nowhere to go...that’s when he so eloquently deploys his exit strategy / bizarre concessions. Hahaha

 

[Mac1958]

 

[BrokeLoser]

Negative...you’ve made a fool of yourself again...that’s all.
You’ve made it clear...your position is the typical position taken by a ‘minority’.....ALL white GOP’ers are racist bigots because a few badasses like myself and Norman speak the truth on anonymous message boards in cyberspace while brown and black politicians framing racist policy within our government and celebrating fewer Whites are not racist bigots.
Trust me, you look like a foolish retard.

 

[Mac1958]

Trust me

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, PoliticalChic, I'll check back in the morning to see if you're still running.

You need to get your algorithm tweaked or something. You went completely off the rails a while back here.

And while you're at it, you may want to see if your programmer can make you a little more "lifelike".

Just a suggestion!
.

I see you've dug a hole with your pathetic equivocation in this thread that you just can't get out of, and at this point you sound no better than the corrupt, lying, pencil necked, bug eyed, pixie lipped, Adam ScHITt.

You must be proud of yourself. What an accomplishment. To go from a once relatively fence sitter board member to full blown leftist sophomoric crap spreader.

Perhaps you can man up enough to answer the question that PC has avoided 16 times like a coward:

Does racism still exist on the Right?
.

I believe you are requesting another spanking.


My pleasure.

You wrote this:
"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.

That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?

I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92




I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....

"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.




When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lies, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....and I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late for you.


That is why you refuse to answer this question:
Is a ‘belief’ an action, or a thought?



Don't wipe the egg off your face....it's an improvement.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, PoliticalChic, I'll check back in the morning to see if you're still running.

You need to get your algorithm tweaked or something. You went completely off the rails a while back here.

And while you're at it, you may want to see if your programmer can make you a little more "lifelike".

Just a suggestion!
.

I see you've dug a hole with your pathetic equivocation in this thread that you just can't get out of, and at this point you sound no better than the corrupt, lying, pencil necked, bug eyed, pixie lipped, Adam ScHITt.

You must be proud of yourself. What an accomplishment. To go from a once relatively fence sitter board member to full blown leftist sophomoric crap spreader.

Perhaps you can man up enough to answer the question that PC has avoided 16 times like a coward:

Does racism still exist on the Right?
.

I believe you are requesting another spanking.


My pleasure.

You wrote this:
"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.

That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?

I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92




I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....

"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.




When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lie, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


That is why you not refuse to answer this question:
Is a ‘belief’ an action, or a thought?



Don't wipe the egg off your face....it's an improvement.

Nice to know I made you hide, you coward.

You enable racism. You should be ashamed.

Swallow that. Good girl.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, PoliticalChic, I'll check back in the morning to see if you're still running.

You need to get your algorithm tweaked or something. You went completely off the rails a while back here.

And while you're at it, you may want to see if your programmer can make you a little more "lifelike".

Just a suggestion!
.

I see you've dug a hole with your pathetic equivocation in this thread that you just can't get out of, and at this point you sound no better than the corrupt, lying, pencil necked, bug eyed, pixie lipped, Adam ScHITt.

You must be proud of yourself. What an accomplishment. To go from a once relatively fence sitter board member to full blown leftist sophomoric crap spreader.

Perhaps you can man up enough to answer the question that PC has avoided 16 times like a coward:

Does racism still exist on the Right?
.

I believe you are requesting another spanking.


My pleasure.

You wrote this:
"Racism is not an act. It's a belief system.

That's the third time I've said that. What's wrong with you?

I wonder if you have any idea how dishonest you are."

Post #92




I pointed out the dictionary definition of 'belief'....

"a habit of mind; an opinion"
. Definition of BELIEF


You fell right into my trap: your belief that racism is a 'thought crime,' to be punished.




When you realized that I caught you, you posted many lie, claiming that you don't believe in thought crimes.....as I used the first amendment to beat you over the head.....but it was too late.


That is why you not refuse to answer this question:
Is a ‘belief’ an action, or a thought?



Don't wipe the egg off your face....it's an improvement.

Nice to know I made you hide, you coward.

You enable racism. You should be ashamed.

Swallow that. Good girl.
.

Post #173 eviscerated you, and revealed you to be a simpleton and a liar.

You claimed 'racism' is a thought crime, like any good Fascist.

You attempted to slander people based on differing opinions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Black, white, whatever....

...why is skin color always the target of the Democrats/Liberals???



6. “During a recent segment about a supermarket shooting in Kentucky, CNN host Don Lemon said that “the biggest terror threat in this country is white men.”

“So,” he said, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?”
CNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying white men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country’


Get that?

"...stop demonizing people....except whites..."

This from a poster with a thread titled:They've Always Been 'Racists'
You should Google the word 'hypocrite'.

The real racist...LBJ v Goldwater....they guy who wasn't the racist..

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights


More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

Yet it was LBJ that voted for it and Goldwater voted against it. Why didn't Goldwater vote for it and let the courts decide? It would certainly have sent a different message.

Lesson in American civics.

When Congress passes a bill, they are to have considered its constitutionality first.
When a President signs a bill, he is assumed to have considered its constitutionality first.

That is the way the Founders hoped governance would occur with elected official of integrity.


Goldwater's argument was based on the importance of private property to liberty.

 

[alang1216]

Black, white, whatever....

...why is skin color always the target of the Democrats/Liberals???



6. “During a recent segment about a supermarket shooting in Kentucky, CNN host Don Lemon said that “the biggest terror threat in this country is white men.”

“So,” he said, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?”
CNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying white men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country’


Get that?

"...stop demonizing people....except whites..."

This from a poster with a thread titled:They've Always Been 'Racists'
You should Google the word 'hypocrite'.

The real racist...LBJ v Goldwater....they guy who wasn't the racist..

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights


More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

Yet it was LBJ that voted for it and Goldwater voted against it. Why didn't Goldwater vote for it and let the courts decide? It would certainly have sent a different message.

Lesson in American civics.

When Congress passes a bill, they are to have considered its constitutionality first.
When a President signs a bill, he is assumed to have considered its constitutionality first.

That is the way the Founders hoped governance would occur with elected official of integrity.


Goldwater's argument was based on the importance of private property to liberty.

Lesson in American civics.

When Congress passes a bill, they are to have considered its constitutionality first.
When a President signs a bill, he is assumed to have considered its constitutionality first.
The Founders knew we didn't need a Supreme Court since all their work would already have been done by Congress and the President. They created one anyway, as a jobs program, but it has never had to strike down or reinterpret a law or review a Presidential action.

You need to take a lesson in American reality.

 

[alang1216]

You attempted to slander people based on differing opinions.

IRONY ALERT!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Black, white, whatever....

...why is skin color always the target of the Democrats/Liberals???



6. “During a recent segment about a supermarket shooting in Kentucky, CNN host Don Lemon said that “the biggest terror threat in this country is white men.”

“So,” he said, “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white-guy ban. So what do we do about that?”
CNN’s Don Lemon doubles down after saying white men are ‘the biggest terror threat in this country’


Get that?

"...stop demonizing people....except whites..."

This from a poster with a thread titled:They've Always Been 'Racists'
You should Google the word 'hypocrite'.

The real racist...LBJ v Goldwater....they guy who wasn't the racist..

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights


More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

Yet it was LBJ that voted for it and Goldwater voted against it. Why didn't Goldwater vote for it and let the courts decide? It would certainly have sent a different message.

Lesson in American civics.

When Congress passes a bill, they are to have considered its constitutionality first.
When a President signs a bill, he is assumed to have considered its constitutionality first.

That is the way the Founders hoped governance would occur with elected official of integrity.


Goldwater's argument was based on the importance of private property to liberty.

Lesson in American civics.

When Congress passes a bill, they are to have considered its constitutionality first.
When a President signs a bill, he is assumed to have considered its constitutionality first.
The Founders knew we didn't need a Supreme Court since all their work would already have been done by Congress and the President. They created one anyway, as a jobs program, but it has never had to strike down or reinterpret a law or review a Presidential action.

You need to take a lesson in American reality.

If you are claiming that the assumption no longer applies since folks like you, government school grads, have taken power....

....I agree.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.

And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

My answer would be a zero chance and that is exactly what didn't happen. What did happen was the racist Dems, AKA Dixiecrats, didn't change their thinking only their party allegiance. The GOP under Goldwater became the party of States Rights, just what the Dixiecrats wanted to maintain their Jim Crow laws, while the Dems became the party of Civil Rights, just what the Dixiecrats hated.

Rewriting history again?

Wrong......that lie can't bear the internet.......

the lie of the Southern Strategy....

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

The actual story referenced by Williams...

see page 4, bottom of first column...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I'm not sure how Nixon crept into the thread but here are the actual facts:

Goldwater carried six states: Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and his home state of Arizona.[141] Goldwater's strong showing in the south is largely due to his support of the white southern view on civil rights: that states should be able to control their own laws without federal intervention.
​

The South was the bastion of the Dixiecrats and their racism. Their move to the GOP was dramatic and permanent and puts the lie to the notion that the Dems have always been the party of racism.

There was no move by racists into the Republican party you doofus......they stayed democrats. all of the racists were supporters, friends or mentors to the likes of al gore and bill clinton.......and the black racists all supported obama....farakhan, jeremiah wright, sharpton, the black panthers...

the party of racism and hate has been and always will be the democrat party.

So why did the South go from solidly Dem to solidly GOP in 1964? Why are they still solidly GOP?

They didn't. The people in the South supported the people they elected because they voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. It took several elections before the former Democrat stronghold went Red.