Who Does Comedy Better?? Conservatives or Liberals?

[MarcATL]

Jeff Foxworthy.

here's a link The Funniest Conservative Comedians of All Time

just to be clear, I'm glad I read the link first, there's a number of people on there that are clearly not conservative.

Interesting.

Who on that list would you cross off as conservative?

 

[Circe]

I'll try his late-in-life writing.

"Not a Negro but an Indian" -- I guess that distinction is important when you are accused of having "a black baby" -- what's even more pathetic is why that would be a bad thing to begin with? Are you ok with a voting base that would vote against a candidate because they had a black baby? Then you wonder why the GOP attracts so many racists[/QUOTE]

It certainly was important --- you sound as if you don't remember the incident, which was scandalous in the extreme. So Mother Theresa handed this black baby to Mrs. McCain and --- what do you do when a known saint puts that on you?? She took it back to America, but it never thrived. In the 2000 PRIMARY election, Geo. W. Bush's people saturated the South Carolina voter telephones with calls saying McCain had a "black baby," implying that he'd had an interracial baby by some black woman and was raising it. This really happened, perhaps the single most dirty trick in politics that I've heard of. Bush won the South Carolina primary and McCain lost. And Bush went on to win the election, barely, by Court order, which I was for at the time but which I think most people would agree turned out quite poorly, all considered.

 

[MarcATL]

Liberal comedians are the worst comics. A majority of their "funny lines" is nothing more than hate speech toward conservatives and people from flyover country. Their "grab their dick" vulgar humor gets old and tiresome.

And you turned around and voted in a self proclaimed "Pu$$y grabber", not to mention the most publicly vulgar politician this country has ever seen.

What other lies and garbage you got to spew?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Since when have Jesse Watters and James O’Keefe been considered comedians? Watters is a Fox News political commentator who sometimes goes out on the streets and talks to foolish people and James O’Keefe is a journalist who specializes in working undercover to expose corruption.

Tim Allen is conservative (I believe) and a comedian. Roseanne is a righty as well...

Watters is a moron. Ever listen to that idiot?

 

[MarcATL]

By the way, that clip was about Reagan's Iran Contra scandal and the hypocrisy of republicans -- it is very relevant to what is occurring right now..

This is why many people consider memory to be kryptonite to Republicans -- because they depend on people not remembering that they have always been this -- it didn't just start with Trump

Reagan was one of the WORST things to ever befall this country.

Among many other things, he was the first to openly and knowingly lie to the American public on television.

He was the pre-cursor for what we have now in Trump.

The Republicans have Reagan as their god, and they seem ready to replace that god w/Trump.

 

[BookShaka]

Since when have Jesse Watters and James O’Keefe been considered comedians? Watters is a Fox News political commentator who sometimes goes out on the streets and talks to foolish people and James O’Keefe is a journalist who specializes in working undercover to expose corruption.

Tim Allen is conservative (I believe) and a comedian. Roseanne is a righty as well...

Tim Allen is funny. But O’Keefe is certainly not a journalist. He’s more of a youtube prankster. To call him a journalist would be like calling Sacha Baron Cohen a journalist.

Whatever. The work he does is the work of a journalist and I’m aware many people don’t like it. He’s more of a journalist than a comedian as he’s about the most unfunny person I can think of.

 

[Fang]

I don't think any comedians are funny who attack people, especially if they use dirty words, as so many do now. How is that funny? It isn't. I avoid the lot of them. They all have a political axe to grind and that's not funny at all.

Liberal comedians are the worst comics. A majority of their "funny lines" is nothing more than hate speech toward conservatives and people from flyover country. Their "grab their dick" vulgar humor gets old and tiresome.

Calling the First Daughter a "feckless c**t" due to shit that also occurred during the Obama Administration is great humor according to Liberals.

 

[Pogo]

Among many other things, he was the first to openly and knowingly lie to the American public on television.

Oh that's going a bit far. I believe both LBJ and Eisenhower both told famous fibs (I'm thinking Gulf of Tonkin and U-2 respectively; possibly Iran... and then of course there was Nixon).

 

[Pogo]

Liberal comedians are the worst comics. A majority of their "funny lines" is nothing more than hate speech toward conservatives and people from flyover country. Their "grab their dick" vulgar humor gets old and tiresome.

And you turned around and voted in a self proclaimed "Pu$$y grabber", not to mention the most publicly vulgar politician this country has ever seen.

What other lies and garbage you got to spew?

When I saw the phrase "grab their dick" the first reference I thought of was Rump in the nationally televised debate. Now that I see the line in full I'm not even sure wtf he's talking about.

 

[BookShaka]

Since when have Jesse Watters and James O’Keefe been considered comedians? Watters is a Fox News political commentator who sometimes goes out on the streets and talks to foolish people and James O’Keefe is a journalist who specializes in working undercover to expose corruption.

Tim Allen is conservative (I believe) and a comedian. Roseanne is a righty as well...

Watters is a moron. Ever listen to that idiot?

I’ve seen him but it’s been years since I’ve cared about him or Fox News.

 

[bodecea]

An interesting discussion came up regarding the Sascha Baron Cohen "Who Is America" prank series -- plenty of liberals loved it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians -- and conservatives hated it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians.

So conservatives countered with pranks done by brilliant conservative comics that targeted liberals and minorities -- like the hilarious Jesse Waters or the comedic genius James O'Keefe -- I tried to watch some of their work and it made me ask the question:

Why are there not that many funny conservative comics??? Is it because comedy clubs won't book them because they are so funny to everyone? Is it because their jokes are so hilarious that media markets don't want to give them the exposure they deserve? Or is it just because they don't tend to be that funny??

You mean you don’t think a drunk, fat guy yelling “GIT ‘ER DONE” is funny?!

It's just as funny as a black guy with poor English starting every joke with "white people always be like...".

^ The butthurt is strong

Aww, did the snowflake get its feelings hurt? Suck it up buttercup. No safe spaces here for you.

See? "Laughing at" comedy.

 

[Pogo]

PC and the pack of SJW has ruined humor for everyone. Lighten up, Francis. Not everything is about how offended you are. Or if you have to be offended, don't Virtue Signal it--no one cares.

And last, for how little women are actually funny, IMO Leftist women are almost NEVER, EVER funny. They come across as bitter, angry, vitriolic, or just nasty. See: Michelle Wolfe attacking Sarah Sanders. I'm convinced part of this is because they don't laugh that much. They don't seem joyful. Funny people should at least laugh. Don't you think?

Yeah --- good post. Leftist "humor" is about how much the comedian hates various people and Virtue Signaling. None of that is funny.

Then why are most of the greatest comics of all time considered to be "leftists"??

George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, etc etc etc

Never watched much Lenny Bruce. Watched a little Carlin and Pryor. I don't remember them doing much if any political humor. Did they?

I'm more familiar with some than others but I see a lot of random assumption assignments going on --- Richard Pryor; Jeff Foxworthy; Roseanne, Tim Allen --- if a standup comedian doesn't even use politics in his/her material, how would we have a basis to so assign them?

Carlin certainly did but I'm very familiar with Richard Pryor and I can't remember any.

 

[Pogo]

I encountered Hitchens in a lot of atheist v. Christian debates. I was rather astounded because I found him vastly unimpressive there--yet, all these pretty impressive Christians said he was charming and funny and highly intelligent. I didn't see it at all.

Then I read some of his stuff NOT related to God. Right. He's a brilliant writer, but writing about God makes him not brilliant--or made him, he's passed on, tragically. I'm convinced he was just too angry about God to write effectively about it; it was all vitriolic polemics. But his writing at the end of his life was breathtaking--honestly, it took my breath away. I admired him, even though his talk about religion was way beneath him. And his abilities.

Well, such is life sometimes.

Useful comment, because I went to my library room after the last exchange and looked to see if I had Hitchens on God -- I didn't, I had two other unread books on the subject, the God Gene and the Dawkins one. Okay, I will give Hitchens a miss on God --- I expect you know he was Devil's Advocate, formally, for the Catholic hierarchy in the sainthood hearing for Mother Theresa. He REALLY didn't like her. One reason was that she wouldn't try to save anyone, even quite young people. (Though she did hand a baby to Mrs. McCain and tell her to raise it! That was the "black baby" that caused McCain to lose the presidency, not a Negro but Indian. There's the Hand of God for you --- and the baby was so impaired it had to be hospitalized permanently.) Her idea was that they had a place for people to die comfortably, and if they came there, that's what they should do. Hitchens was upset about a 15-year-old boy, IIRC, who simply needed a course of antibiotics. "If we send one to the hospital, we have to send them all," said Mother Theresa, and let him die. That's the story as I recall it, anyway.

I'll try his late-in-life writing.

"Not a Negro but an Indian" -- I guess that distinction is important when you are accused of having "a black baby" -- what's even more pathetic is why that would be a bad thing to begin with? Are you ok with a voting base that would vote against a candidate because they had a black baby? Then you wonder why the GOP attracts so many racists

Not an "Indian" but a Bangladeshi. And the reference is to the Dubya campaign that robo-called the voters of South Carolina ahead of that state's primary (2000) with a fake poll ("push poll") asking "would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered (fathered) an illegitimate black child?"

A few years after that USMB went online and got populated by wags who po-facedly insist to this day that the "Southern Strategy" is a myth.

 

[Pogo]

Jeff Foxworthy.

here's a link The Funniest Conservative Comedians of All Time

just to be clear, I'm glad I read the link first, there's a number of people on there that are clearly not conservative.

Interesting.

Who on that list would you cross off as conservative?

I'd certainly cross off Bob Hope and Jeff Dunham. Not as familiar with the rest but I can't remember those two delving into politics as a topic.

 

[2aguy]

Funny people do comedy better.

To this, I agree.

The problem with the left wing comedians right now, as other comedians have put it...they have put getting the affirming clap ahead of actually making people laugh. That is why unfunny people like colbert and that wolfe woman are called comedians.

 

[2aguy]

I encountered Hitchens in a lot of atheist v. Christian debates. I was rather astounded because I found him vastly unimpressive there--yet, all these pretty impressive Christians said he was charming and funny and highly intelligent. I didn't see it at all.

Then I read some of his stuff NOT related to God. Right. He's a brilliant writer, but writing about God makes him not brilliant--or made him, he's passed on, tragically. I'm convinced he was just too angry about God to write effectively about it; it was all vitriolic polemics. But his writing at the end of his life was breathtaking--honestly, it took my breath away. I admired him, even though his talk about religion was way beneath him. And his abilities.

Well, such is life sometimes.

Useful comment, because I went to my library room after the last exchange and looked to see if I had Hitchens on God -- I didn't, I had two other unread books on the subject, the God Gene and the Dawkins one. Okay, I will give Hitchens a miss on God --- I expect you know he was Devil's Advocate, formally, for the Catholic hierarchy in the sainthood hearing for Mother Theresa. He REALLY didn't like her. One reason was that she wouldn't try to save anyone, even quite young people. (Though she did hand a baby to Mrs. McCain and tell her to raise it! That was the "black baby" that caused McCain to lose the presidency, not a Negro but Indian. There's the Hand of God for you --- and the baby was so impaired it had to be hospitalized permanently.) Her idea was that they had a place for people to die comfortably, and if they came there, that's what they should do. Hitchens was upset about a 15-year-old boy, IIRC, who simply needed a course of antibiotics. "If we send one to the hospital, we have to send them all," said Mother Theresa, and let him die. That's the story as I recall it, anyway.

I'll try his late-in-life writing.

"Not a Negro but an Indian" -- I guess that distinction is important when you are accused of having "a black baby" -- what's even more pathetic is why that would be a bad thing to begin with? Are you ok with a voting base that would vote against a candidate because they had a black baby? Then you wonder why the GOP attracts so many racists

Not an "Indian" but a Bangladeshi. And the reference is to the Dubya campaign that robo-called the voters of South Carolina ahead of that state's primary (2000) with a fake poll ("push poll") asking "would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered (fathered) an illegitimate black child?"

A few years after that USMB went online and got populated by wags who po-facedly insist to this day that the "Southern Strategy" is a myth.

It is a myth....you have been shown it is a myth......and then you keep lying.

Some truth for you....

blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.


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


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.



On the Southern Strategy lie itself......


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the actual New York Times article cited in the link where they quote the Phillips story that created the lie...I can't grab a quote out of it but the paragraph is at the bottom of page 4 first column

The truth, not the lie.

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

 

[2aguy]

An interesting discussion came up regarding the Sascha Baron Cohen "Who Is America" prank series -- plenty of liberals loved it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians -- and conservatives hated it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians.

So conservatives countered with pranks done by brilliant conservative comics that targeted liberals and minorities -- like the hilarious Jesse Waters or the comedic genius James O'Keefe -- I tried to watch some of their work and it made me ask the question:

Why are there not that many funny conservative comics??? Is it because comedy clubs won't book them because they are so funny to everyone? Is it because their jokes are so hilarious that media markets don't want to give them the exposure they deserve? Or is it just because they don't tend to be that funny??

The answer to this question is very simple.

Conservatives, by nature, have an innate tendency to kiss up (to power) and punch down (to those deemed (or actually) below them), therefore their comedy or "comedy" actually, is seen as, and actually is manifested as bullying and cruelty.

Liberals, by nature, have an innate tendency to fight the power and have everyone be on an equal plane, therefore they speak truth to power, that's why they're actually funny when they turn to humor. You see, to be funny, you have to actually tell the truth, otherwise it's just not funny.

But don't take my word for it...

Just look at every self-proclaimed conservative here on any issue, they are always either sucking-up to power and/or punching down to those below them.

And just about every liberal on here consistently fights against power.

You haven't watched comedy lately......liberals, left wingers.......are the court jesters for the powerful now...who are used to attack the enemies of the left.

 

[2aguy]

An interesting discussion came up regarding the Sascha Baron Cohen "Who Is America" prank series -- plenty of liberals loved it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians -- and conservatives hated it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians.

So conservatives countered with pranks done by brilliant conservative comics that targeted liberals and minorities -- like the hilarious Jesse Waters or the comedic genius James O'Keefe -- I tried to watch some of their work and it made me ask the question:

Why are there not that many funny conservative comics??? Is it because comedy clubs won't book them because they are so funny to everyone? Is it because their jokes are so hilarious that media markets don't want to give them the exposure they deserve? Or is it just because they don't tend to be that funny??

You mean you don’t think a drunk, fat guy yelling “GIT ‘ER DONE” is funny?!

I am sure Larry The Cable Guy is funny -- but I doubt his comedy is all that conservative to me...same with Jeff Foxworthy...


but I seldom see so-called conservative comics like Dennis Miller mentioned as being one of the greats like Carlin, Pryor and Murphy.

Dennis Miller is more libertarian than conservative and he was a late comer to seeing left wingers for the totalitrians that they actually are.

Notice...it isn't the conservatives who have driven comedians off college campuses......all of the real comedians say they can't go to college campuses anymore because of left wing thought police.

 

[Pogo]

I encountered Hitchens in a lot of atheist v. Christian debates. I was rather astounded because I found him vastly unimpressive there--yet, all these pretty impressive Christians said he was charming and funny and highly intelligent. I didn't see it at all.

Then I read some of his stuff NOT related to God. Right. He's a brilliant writer, but writing about God makes him not brilliant--or made him, he's passed on, tragically. I'm convinced he was just too angry about God to write effectively about it; it was all vitriolic polemics. But his writing at the end of his life was breathtaking--honestly, it took my breath away. I admired him, even though his talk about religion was way beneath him. And his abilities.

Well, such is life sometimes.

Useful comment, because I went to my library room after the last exchange and looked to see if I had Hitchens on God -- I didn't, I had two other unread books on the subject, the God Gene and the Dawkins one. Okay, I will give Hitchens a miss on God --- I expect you know he was Devil's Advocate, formally, for the Catholic hierarchy in the sainthood hearing for Mother Theresa. He REALLY didn't like her. One reason was that she wouldn't try to save anyone, even quite young people. (Though she did hand a baby to Mrs. McCain and tell her to raise it! That was the "black baby" that caused McCain to lose the presidency, not a Negro but Indian. There's the Hand of God for you --- and the baby was so impaired it had to be hospitalized permanently.) Her idea was that they had a place for people to die comfortably, and if they came there, that's what they should do. Hitchens was upset about a 15-year-old boy, IIRC, who simply needed a course of antibiotics. "If we send one to the hospital, we have to send them all," said Mother Theresa, and let him die. That's the story as I recall it, anyway.

I'll try his late-in-life writing.

"Not a Negro but an Indian" -- I guess that distinction is important when you are accused of having "a black baby" -- what's even more pathetic is why that would be a bad thing to begin with? Are you ok with a voting base that would vote against a candidate because they had a black baby? Then you wonder why the GOP attracts so many racists

Not an "Indian" but a Bangladeshi. And the reference is to the Dubya campaign that robo-called the voters of South Carolina ahead of that state's primary (2000) with a fake poll ("push poll") asking "would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered (fathered) an illegitimate black child?"

A few years after that USMB went online and got populated by wags who po-facedly insist to this day that the "Southern Strategy" is a myth.

It is a myth....you have been shown it is a myth......and then you keep lying.

Some truth for you....

blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.


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


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

“I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

“U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

“I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

“On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.



On the Southern Strategy lie itself......


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the actual New York Times article cited in the link where they quote the Phillips story that created the lie...I can't grab a quote out of it but the paragraph is at the bottom of page 4 first column

The truth, not the lie.

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

Uuuhhhhhmmmm..... might want to actually read the post you quote before you start salivating and proving its point there, Pavlov.... oopsie.

 

[Pogo]

An interesting discussion came up regarding the Sascha Baron Cohen "Who Is America" prank series -- plenty of liberals loved it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians -- and conservatives hated it because it targeted POWERFUL conservative politicians.

So conservatives countered with pranks done by brilliant conservative comics that targeted liberals and minorities -- like the hilarious Jesse Waters or the comedic genius James O'Keefe -- I tried to watch some of their work and it made me ask the question:

Why are there not that many funny conservative comics??? Is it because comedy clubs won't book them because they are so funny to everyone? Is it because their jokes are so hilarious that media markets don't want to give them the exposure they deserve? Or is it just because they don't tend to be that funny??

The answer to this question is very simple.

Conservatives, by nature, have an innate tendency to kiss up (to power) and punch down (to those deemed (or actually) below them), therefore their comedy or "comedy" actually, is seen as, and actually is manifested as bullying and cruelty.

Liberals, by nature, have an innate tendency to fight the power and have everyone be on an equal plane, therefore they speak truth to power, that's why they're actually funny when they turn to humor. You see, to be funny, you have to actually tell the truth, otherwise it's just not funny.

But don't take my word for it...

Just look at every self-proclaimed conservative here on any issue, they are always either sucking-up to power and/or punching down to those below them.

And just about every liberal on here consistently fights against power.

You haven't watched comedy lately......liberals, left wingers.......are the court jesters for the powerful now...who are used to attack the enemies of the left.

Translation from Butthurtish to English:

"The klowns I support politically are so eminently mockable, everybody's doing it" .