Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[bodecea]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

How many of those Democrats who signed Jim Crow laws are alive today? Can you list them, please?

I don't think any of them is alive today. So, if they're all dead, everything is forgotten? Not so fast, road runner.

I got better question... how many of those Democrats who signed Jim Crow, and lynching laws were kicked out of the party that claims it stands for civil rights? Can you list them, please?

Kicked out of the party? When is ANYONE ever kicked out of a party? Can you name at least one person who was ever kicked out of a party for any reason? Just one?

 

[bodecea]

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

I don't know how many times they've been shown that the Civil Rights Act vote was more split by region, not by party.

 

[rightwinger]

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

I don't know how many times they've been shown that the Civil Rights Act vote was more split by region, not by party.

They have their cherry picking statistics and they are not giving them up

 

[rightwinger]

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

 

[bodecea]

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

Not anymore....but there was a time....in the past....

 

[rightwinger]

The only monuments to the Confederacy that should be allowed

 

[Correll]

That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

Good point.

I mean, yes, we know that libs just say shit.


But that is a good catch, on exactly how what they are saying, is shit.

 

[Pogo]

That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You've been schooled on this mythology over and over and over, yet you choose to ignore it and pretend those facts never made it past your lying eyes. ONE, no political party in the world stands in a fixed ideological position and ignores the winds of change around it, EVER; TWO, Slavery never had a "party", was established and entrenched LOOOONG before political parties or even a country were; THREE, the KKK was never, in any of its iterations, established by, run by, or required affiliation with, any political party; FOUR, opposition to civil rights has been demonstrated, even in the quote directly above, to have been, like Slavery, regional, not political; FIVE, lynchings too have never been a political act, NOBODY ANYWHERE --- and anywhere encompasses literally anywhere from Maine to Minnesota to the South and beyond --- EVER stood outside a lynching and checked political registrations for admittance, and SIX, like lynchings, Jim Crow and segregation were ALSO nationwide. Unless you're prepared to show the class how Omaha Nebraska and Springfield Illinois and Duluth Minnesota have somehow moved to "the South". You'll need a bigly Sharpie.

EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE has been documented and proven, yet here you are flinging the same myths against the wall hoping they'll stick, KNOWING they will not. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Correll]

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

That's why Wilson banned blacks from the Civil Service when they used to serve? Because the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights?

So, to be clear, me and RW, are discussing the situation of the nation in the 60s, and to refute my point, about what was going on in the 60s, you cite a dem President from almost 50 years earlier.


Yeah. Well, I don't know exactly how to argue against your point, beyond ...


I guess, I have to link to a discussion of the concept of linear time....yes, that is what I will do.


What is linear time? | Yahoo Answers

 

[Correll]

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

1. Our commitment to equality has never been stronger.

2. Southern whites have the same right to celebrate their heritage as any other group.

 

[Correll]

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

Correct. You switched your target for your racism. Before you used to discriminate against and oppress blacks, and today it is whites.


Your still the party of racism and assholes, but you just lost the last battle and now have switched sides, on whom you are being racist to.

 

[Correll]

The only monuments to the Confederacy that should be allowed

View attachment 308530

Slavery is not the only story. And it has been beaten to death. Time to be less boring.

 

[Correll]

Again --- the numbers prove you wrong. See post 1279.

​

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You've been schooled on this mythology over and over and over, yet you choose to ignore it and pretend those facts never made it past your lying eyes. ONE, no political party in the world stands in a fixed ideological position and ignores the winds of change around it, EVER; ....

The GOP has been committed to increasing civil rights it's entire existence.

 

[Pogo]

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.

Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,

YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,

is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

Correct. You switched your target for your racism. Before you used to discriminate against and oppress blacks, and today it is whites.

Your still the party of racism and assholes, but you just lost the last battle and now have switched sides, on whom you are being racist to.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you continue to unabashedly wallow in ignorance about your own terms.

Racism, like slavery, like lynchings and the whole orgy of related shit Amurkycan't-do tried to fling against the wall above, IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a political issue. It's a social construct. No one, literally zero people, in the history of the world, has ever needed a political party, or any interest in politics at all, to practice racism, discrimination, slavery, lynchings, etc etc etc. Literally never happened. Ever full stop. Desperate flailing attempts to attach personality traits to political parties demonstrates not only an addiction to generalization fallacy but a direct admission that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're babbling about.

 

[Pogo]

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You've been schooled on this mythology over and over and over, yet you choose to ignore it and pretend those facts never made it past your lying eyes. ONE, no political party in the world stands in a fixed ideological position and ignores the winds of change around it, EVER; ....

The GOP has been committed to increasing civil rights it's entire existence.

BULLSHIT. NO political party anywhere that's over about 20 years old has "always been committed" to anything but its own self-perpetuation. If you believe what you just wrote I have several bridges to sell you. Package deal, all the bridges in the world. With logic like that you're gonna need all the bridges you can get.

Just yesterday --- in response to a poster asking "how can the DP nominate Sanders when he's not a Democrat" I advised him that being a party member wasn't necessary for that party's nomination, and cited the Democratic candidate in the election of 1872. Do you know who that was?

I'll give you the answer --- it was Horace Greeley, a Liberal Republican. Liberal Republicans were opposed to Radical Republicans (Grant, the incumbent). The Republican Party was not yet twenty years old and already splitting ideologically. And this is well before the McKinley years when the RP took on the interests of the wealthy, as outlined way back in the thread, the post you also chose to ignore as inconvenient to your mythology.

Inconvenience, I'm afraid, is irrelevant. Historical fact is non-negotiable. Like the bridges, it's a package deal --- you have to take the whole thing, you can't just cherrypick your ice cream because you don't like raisins.

 

[rightwinger]

I make a comment about the broad trends of the nation and the parties over time and you post the vote count from a single bill, without context or even stated reasons as though that refutes it?


Consider your silliness noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


That would be interesting historical detail on the process, if you had not so torpedoed your credibility that I can't trust anything you say.


Also, the republican [sic] party never wavered in it's [sic] support of equality and civil rights. The southern voters that more and more voted Republican were always the pro-civil rights voters of the South, until long after the issue had become politically moot.

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

1. Our commitment to equality has never been stronger.

2. Southern whites have the same right to celebrate their heritage as any other group.

They have no right to force their heritage of hate on to others
Why aren’t they celebrating the good ole days of Jim Crow?
They could have a day where everything is segregated and they beat blacks for being uppity

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.

Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,

YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,

is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

Correct. You switched your target for your racism. Before you used to discriminate against and oppress blacks, and today it is whites.

Your still the party of racism and assholes, but you just lost the last battle and now have switched sides, on whom you are being racist to.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you continue to unabashedly wallow in ignorance about your own terms.

Racism, like slavery, like lynchings and the whole orgy of related shit Amurkycan't-do tried to fling against the wall above, IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a political issue. It's a social construct. No one, literally zero people, in the history of the world, has ever needed a political party, or any interest in politics at all, to practice racism, discrimination, slavery, lynchings, etc etc etc. Literally never happened. Ever full stop. Desperate flailing attempts to attach personality traits to political parties demonstrates not only an addiction to generalization fallacy but a direct admission that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're babbling about.

If it was never political issue, how do you explain that ALL racist Jim Crow laws, were voted for by Democrat legislators, signed by Democrat governor, upheld by Democrat judges, and enforced by Democrat sheriffs and police? Why is it that all those racist, after Civil War, for another 100 years found home in Democratic party? If is not political, how do you explain that out of 100 grand wizards and dragons of KKK, every single one was a Democrat, with exception of Duke, who was Democrat, then Republican. You lefties always mention him as example, because he is the ONLY example, while hiding every other one who stayed in Democrat party for life. Refute this, you lying asshole.

 

[Pogo]

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.

Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

1. Our commitment to equality has never been stronger.

2. Southern whites have the same right to celebrate their heritage as any other group.

They have no right to force their heritage of hate on to others
Why aren’t they celebrating the good ole days of Jim Crow?
They could have a day where everything is segregated and they beat blacks for being uppity

They could indeed. It would look like this

​

Or, the street version of any number of whiny threads on this site

 

[Correll]

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.

Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,

YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,

is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You notice how the right wing loves to try and take credit for Civil Rights legislation, but today they are the party that is anti-minority.

Also it is the right wing who want to honor and defend the very Democrats that they claim were racist.

Don’t see many Democrats fighting for Confederate heritage.

Correct. You switched your target for your racism. Before you used to discriminate against and oppress blacks, and today it is whites.

Your still the party of racism and assholes, but you just lost the last battle and now have switched sides, on whom you are being racist to.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand you continue to unabashedly wallow in ignorance about your own terms.

Racism, like slavery, like lynchings and the whole orgy of related shit Amurkycan't-do tried to fling against the wall above, IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a political issue. It's a social construct. No one, literally zero people, in the history of the world, has ever needed a political party, or any interest in politics at all, to practice racism, discrimination, slavery, lynchings, etc etc etc. Literally never happened. Ever full stop. Desperate flailing attempts to attach personality traits to political parties demonstrates not only an addiction to generalization fallacy but a direct admission that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're babbling about.

Slavery might not have been a political issue when it created, but it certainly became a political issue in this country, pretty quickly after the Revolutionary War ended.

It was certainly a political issue in the election of Abraham Lincoln and in the events leading up to the Civil War.


THe Republican Party was created to fight against slavery, politically. It was a political party created to fight the policy of slavery.


Your denial of this well documented historical reality is quite mad.

 

[Correll]

NO Twaddles, you made an absolute statement. I would have re-quoted it here but you just did it for me directly above. And I showed you where ZERO Southern Republicans voted for CRA 1964, zero being fewer than the six Democrats who voted for it.

So you're wrong, and you can't face it. Which is par for this coarse. You've carried the same inability throughout this pointless exercise.

Oh, sorry, I couldn't event tell what you were trying to say with that.


Southern Republicans, of that time, were a tiny faction of the party. They certainly did not define the party. I'm not sure what the story was with them and their relationship with the larger national party, but the Party, as a whole, was solidly behind the bill and was in favor of civil rights before, during and after that vote,


YOur attempt to focus on one small faction of the Party and ignore what the vast majority were doing and what the stated party platform was,


is stupid.

You notice how lefties always claim how Democrats of the past are not the same Democrats of today. Party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow laws, party of opposition to civil rights, somehow they evolved, changed, switched, they are the good guys, but for some reason always kept the same name.

On the other hand... Republicans, who were since the establishment of the party always supporting civil rights and party that opposed everything that Democrat stand for in the past are in minds of leftists always somehow bad guys, conservative Southerners incapable of change and acceptance.

You've been schooled on this mythology over and over and over, yet you choose to ignore it and pretend those facts never made it past your lying eyes. ONE, no political party in the world stands in a fixed ideological position and ignores the winds of change around it, EVER; ....

The GOP has been committed to increasing civil rights it's entire existence.

BULLSHIT. NO political party anywhere that's over about 20 years old has "always been committed" to anything but its own self-perpetuation. ......

Show me the Party Platform of the GOP, that was NOT committed to supporting civil rights.