we are all the democrats who built the White House

[2aguy]

You would think that if slavery of 239 years ago, that ended 150 years ago with Republicans defeating the slave owning democrats was still and issue for blacks....they wouldn't vote for democrats today who did this just 50 years ago...

 

[2aguy]

Seems like democrats invented the choke hold.....using it against Republicans at Selma.....





Look at how those democrats are treating that Republican...a peaceful protestor.......and that was only 50 years ago........and I don't believe the democrats ever apologized for it.....

 

[Porker]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

 

[Lakhota]

Slaves built the White House.

Under white supervision.
The Architect was white.
Slaves dug the foundations, sawed the lumber, hauled the stones, and performed all the unskilled labor tasks, all under white supervision.

Hey, moron, slaves did everything under "white supervision". Were you homeskooled - or did you ride the short bus?

 

[Billy000]

We are all the same democrats that supported slavery and opposed civil rights legislation in the 1950s. Will Obama ever say that?

Um no because democrats of today are progressives. Obviously not the same.

 

[hortysir]

Slaves built the White House.

yeah....show the link.....

There are many links. Here is just one...

The legend of slaves building Capitol is correct - PolitiFact

Oh...I thought you were going to use an actual link....politifact is just another media organ of the democrat party...thanks for trying though....

Source doesn't change fact.

Can you post a link disproving it?

 

[Lakhota]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

You left out one very important fact: Most of the old Dixiecrats switched from Democrat to Republican. Today's Republicans include the old racist Dixiecrats. Conservative Dixiecrats are now Republicans. We now have Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Democrats evolved; Republicans devolved.

 

[Pogo]

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

 

[Porker]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

You left out one very important fact: Most of the old Dixiecrats switched from Democrat to Republican. Today's Republicans include the old racist Dixiecrats. Conservative Dixiecrats are now Republicans. We now have Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Democrats evolved; Republicans devolved.

Name them. And don't include Strom Thurmond. He switched parties because he saw what the democrats were doing (Kleagle Robert Byrd WV dem.)...filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So just name all those democrats that turned Republican. I lived back then, asshole. Did YOU?

 

[Porker]

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

Not a theory asshole...it was a FACT. And nobody gives a flying shit what happened to the ORIGINAL versions...DEMOCRAT KKK kleagle Robert Byrd took care of that with his FILIBUSTER you stupid bastard. The OLD FART that died a goddamn dimocrit in 2010. Try again junior.

 

[Pogo]

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

Not a theory asshole...it was a FACT. And nobody gives a flying shit what happened to the ORIGINAL versions...DEMOCRAT KKK kleagle Robert Byrd took care of that with his FILIBUSTER you stupid bastard. The OLD FART that died a goddamn dimocrit in 2010. Try again junior.

Your theory fails. That being the theory that party affiliation somehow is associated with in this case the 1964 CRA. My read says it's cultural. Your numbers don't make the case; mine do. Emphatically. Read 'em and weep.

I suggest you quit enslaving yourself to the idea of political parties as some kind of cops-and-robbers kid's game and see the world the way it really works -- through the influence of culture.

 

[RandomVariable]

Sorry....the left loves the state....a big powerful, all controlling state with no limits on its power....

I am a modern American conservative sympathetic to the Tea Party/libertarians who believes in a limited central government constrained by checks and balances, and separation of powers and whose actions are defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and whose guiding principal is the Declaration of Independence.......

So...not a lefty at all......

In those checks and balances is there anything to keep the Congress from becoming completely corrupt?

 

[Porker]

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

Not a theory asshole...it was a FACT. And nobody gives a flying shit what happened to the ORIGINAL versions...DEMOCRAT KKK kleagle Robert Byrd took care of that with his FILIBUSTER you stupid bastard. The OLD FART that died a goddamn dimocrit in 2010. Try again junior.

Your theory fails. That being the theory that party affiliation somehow is associated with in this case the 1964 CRA. My read says it's cultural. Your numbers don't make the case; mine do. Emphatically. Read 'em and weep.

I suggest you quit enslaving yourself to the idea of political parties as some kind of cops-and-robbers kid's game and see the world how it really works -- culture.

And YOU and YOUR numbers are a TYPICAL dimwitocrat (communist) ploy to convince yourself that you and your sorry ass political party are the heroes of black civil rights legislation. You're NOT and your political party are SCUMBAGS. As Lyndon Johnson said in 1964...

“I’ll have those nig-gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“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.”—LBJ

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

 

[Pogo]

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

Not a theory asshole...it was a FACT. And nobody gives a flying shit what happened to the ORIGINAL versions...DEMOCRAT KKK kleagle Robert Byrd took care of that with his FILIBUSTER you stupid bastard. The OLD FART that died a goddamn dimocrit in 2010. Try again junior.

Your theory fails. That being the theory that party affiliation somehow is associated with in this case the 1964 CRA. My read says it's cultural. Your numbers don't make the case; mine do. Emphatically. Read 'em and weep.

I suggest you quit enslaving yourself to the idea of political parties as some kind of cops-and-robbers kid's game and see the world how it really works -- culture.

And YOU and YOUR numbers are a TYPICAL dimwitocrat (communist) ploy to convince yourself that you and your sorry ass political party are the heroes of black civil rights legislation. You're NOT and your political party are SCUMBAGS. As Lyndon Johnson said in 1964...

“I’ll have those nig-gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“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.”—LBJ

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

Desperation strikes deep. Your numbers didn't pan out so you're turning to Steve McRacist's bogus quote machine.

Actually it was LBJ who pushed hard for and signed the CRA into law. You just painted yourself into a corner.
Shoulda quit while you were uh, less far behind.

I don't even have a political party; I've made that clear. But I do dig history and cultural study.
That's why I won't let you fuck with it. The numbers, as well as the rhetoric of the time (I lived through that era, so did you) clearly tell us this CRA was a had bipartisan support and hyper-regional resistance. Not the other way around.

 

[Porker]

Desperation strikes deep. Your numbers didn't pan out so you're turning to Steve McRacist's bogus quote machine.

My #s were THE ONLY numbers that mattered, you little prick. The passing votes in both the House and the Senate....by MUCH LARGER margins from the Republicans than the dimowittedcrats.

Actually it was LBJ who pushed hard for and signed the CRA into law. You just painted yourself into a corner.

IN fact it was LBJ who said...
“I’ll have those nig-gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“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.”—LBJ

I don't even have a political party; I've made that clear. But I do dig history and cultural study.
That's why I won't let you fuck with it. The numbers, as well as the rhetoric of the time (I lived through that era, so did you) clearly tell us this CRA was a had bipartisan support and hyper-regional resistance. Not the other way around.

In fact you can't find your ass with either hand RETARD.

 

[2aguy]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" so that's a non-starter. But scan some political maps of the South some time, before and after Strom Thurmond led the theretofore unhinkable migration starting in 1964. Or have a look at the votes on the CRA -- the event that spurred Thurmond to do that -- by region.

Doesn't matter anyway; racism is cultural, not political. I already made that point, and it stands, and the above demonstrates it.

The OP started the thread with a strawman; that strawman has been dismissed.

You left out one very important fact: Most of the old Dixiecrats switched from Democrat to Republican. Today's Republicans include the old racist Dixiecrats. Conservative Dixiecrats are now Republicans. We now have Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Democrats evolved; Republicans devolved.

No....the old dixiecrats stayed in the democrat party...they did not switch over...democrats evolved their tactics and goals....no more whips and chains...now...big government welfare in exchange for political power for the democrats...the new goal....enslaving all Americans, not just blacks......

 

[2aguy]

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no such thing a the democrat party as it's a bunch of communists wannabes at this point. But let's look at the passing into law votes of the two parties in 1964 on the 1964 Civil rights bill. And we'll see if the "strawman" as been dismissed.

SENATE Vote

Now let's look at the HOUSE vote...

WOW...lookey there...the Republican Party in BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS supported the ACT by greater margins than the Communist Party did. And Strom Thrurman left the communists party because of that old sumbitch from West Virginia...the exalted cyclop and recruiting kleagle, not to mention his trying to filibuster this act...Robert K. Byrd. who died a communist in 2010.

Pffft.
First of all there were no "communists" involved on either side -- even though conservatives of the time tried to use that label to smear civil rights activists. Didn't exist. Thurmond left the DP because he couldn't get his way with the CRA. It was at least the second time he did that, the first being 1948 with the "Dixiecrat" soap opera -- the one Trent Lott referred to at his 100th birthday.

Now let's look at what those numbers really say.

By party
The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

-- not a significant spread; obviously both parties supported the bill.

Now watch this.
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Bottom line:
House Northerners: 283-33 ... House Southerners: 7-97
Senate Northerners: 72-6 .... Senate Southerners: 1-21
89.5% of Northerners in the House and 92.3% of Northern Senate, versus 6.7% and 4.5%

NOW you have a contrast. Party vs. Party = no difference. Region vs. Region = HUGE difference.

That's why I keep ramming into your thick head -- it's cultural. Not political.
Oh and remember how you tried to play the party numbers as if they meant something? Check those party numbers by region -- in the South, center stage for all this, they behave the opposite way from your half-baked theory; more Repubs than Dems voted against it.

So much for that theory.

Not a theory asshole...it was a FACT. And nobody gives a flying shit what happened to the ORIGINAL versions...DEMOCRAT KKK kleagle Robert Byrd took care of that with his FILIBUSTER you stupid bastard. The OLD FART that died a goddamn dimocrit in 2010. Try again junior.

Your theory fails. That being the theory that party affiliation somehow is associated with in this case the 1964 CRA. My read says it's cultural. Your numbers don't make the case; mine do. Emphatically. Read 'em and weep.

I suggest you quit enslaving yourself to the idea of political parties as some kind of cops-and-robbers kid's game and see the world how it really works -- culture.

And YOU and YOUR numbers are a TYPICAL dimwitocrat (communist) ploy to convince yourself that you and your sorry ass political party are the heroes of black civil rights legislation. You're NOT and your political party are SCUMBAGS. As Lyndon Johnson said in 1964...

“I’ll have those nig-gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -

“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.”—LBJ

Some Of The Lost History In The Civil Rights Movement

Desperation strikes deep. Your numbers didn't pan out so you're turning to Steve McRacist's bogus quote machine.

Actually it was LBJ who pushed hard for and signed the CRA into law. You just painted yourself into a corner.
Shoulda quit while you were uh, less far behind.

I don't even have a political party; I've made that clear. But I do dig history and cultural study.
That's why I won't let you fuck with it. The numbers, as well as the rhetoric of the time (I lived through that era, so did you) clearly tell us this CRA was a had bipartisan support and hyper-regional resistance. Not the other way around.

LBJ created the great society to ensnare blacks....he stated by getting them hooked on government welfare they would vote democrat for the next 200 years........he "evolved" in his methods and goals.........

 

[2aguy]

And more on the myth of the dixiecrats.....who became republicans.....and myth it is....

Freedom and Liberty The Myth of the Dixiecrat Switch of the Republican and Democratic parties


I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads.

He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

 

[Porker]

And more on the myth of the dixiecrats.....who became republicans.....and myth it is....

Freedom and Liberty The Myth of the Dixiecrat Switch of the Republican and Democratic parties


I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads.

He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

And thank you immensely. That absolutely nailed the issue down.

 

[Lakhota]

And more on the myth of the dixiecrats.....who became republicans.....and myth it is....

Freedom and Liberty The Myth of the Dixiecrat Switch of the Republican and Democratic parties


I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads.

He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

Bullshit. That was debunked a long time ago.