Why should blacks become republicans?

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Um...because today the Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, which was not the case when that member tried to say Democrats were the first racists.

You admitted you didn't read my post. What makes you qualified to speak for me?

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Um...because today the Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, which was not the case when that member tried to say Democrats were the first racists.

You admitted you didn't read my post. What makes you qualified to speak for me?

I read enough to know the part I bolded was a lie, so why would I waste my time reading the rest of it?

 

[Humorme]

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Um...because today the Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, which was not the case when that member tried to say Democrats were the first racists.

It's a fact of history that the RP was formed, in part, to abolish slavery. The KKK was formed by a group of Democrat Civil War veterans and elected Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, as the first Grand Wizard. Were you not aware of this?

 

[ATL]

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

I don't know how King voted. And any idiot that continues to call people people a liar like you do - especially when you're lying yourself is a joke.

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Um...because today the Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, which was not the case when that member tried to say Democrats were the first racists.

It's a fact of history that the RP was formed, in part, to abolish slavery. The KKK was formed by a group of Democrat Civil War veterans and elected Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, as the first Grand Wizard. Were you not aware of this?

You pointing that out, is like saying airplanes used to have three wings. It doesn't matter one iota what label was which before the CRA was signed, because afterwards conservatives knew which party held their values. LBJ set in motion the freewheel of white nationalists into the GOP.

 

[ATL]

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

I don't know how King voted. And any idiot that continues to call people people a liar like you do - especially when you're lying yourself is a joke.

There's no need for "you" to know how anyone voted, it's called reading historical documents.

 

[Humorme]

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

I'm babbling? You are spouting dung as if it were manna from Heaven. You trying to pick a fight? You won't get it done on a discussion board. The only hole we're digging here is the one to put that horseshit your're slinging into.

 

[ATL]

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

I'm babbling? You are spouting dung as if it were manna from Heaven. You trying to pick a fight? You won't get it done on a discussion board. The only hole we're digging here is the one to put that horseshit your're slinging into.

So, people paid you to speak?

 

[Humorme]

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

I don't know how King voted. And any idiot that continues to call people people a liar like you do - especially when you're lying yourself is a joke.

There's no need for "you" to know how anyone voted, it's called reading historical documents.

The problem is, YOU admitted to not having read what I wrote before you dragged me into your private pissing match.

It's obvious to most here that you either plagiarize swill from someone who is as ignorant as you OR maybe you like to cherry pick from documents to get the result you want. Let me make my post understandable for you:

I did not take the side of the liberal or conservative; Republican nor Democrat. But, when some jackass comes along, trying to screw with me and tell me what I said and did not say before reading my post, it makes you look like an absolute idiot... and you seem to be on a mission to prove that perception right.

It has already been established that you're a coward. You're posting B.S. on the Internet that you don't say to people in public - and for good reason. It appears that you are too stupid to read all of a post and then offer up a civil conversation wherein you respectfully challenge any point (s) you don't understand. So little guy (and I mean that in more ways than one) while you are trying to compensate for some apparent deficit, let me tell you one more time: If you want to say stupid shit, you should take it to PM. What you're doing is not entertaining, educational, nor even remotely interesting.

 

[Humorme]

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

I'm babbling? You are spouting dung as if it were manna from Heaven. You trying to pick a fight? You won't get it done on a discussion board. The only hole we're digging here is the one to put that horseshit your're slinging into.

So, people paid you to speak?

Let me put it another way for you:

My hometown newspaper had an editorial by the lead editor wherein he said that I was "the most quoted man in Georgia."

 

[GreenBean]

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

They rarely cause any trouble ? Just once a month when they get together with that guy Tom

 

[ATL]

Was that word salad supposed to mean something? Basically you just waved a white flag and took the usual route of trying to play the victim for being outed as not knowing basic history. Sorry I made you exit your safe space, but maybe next time you'll consider your knowledge of a subject before interjecting bullshit into it.

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

I'm babbling? You are spouting dung as if it were manna from Heaven. You trying to pick a fight? You won't get it done on a discussion board. The only hole we're digging here is the one to put that horseshit your're slinging into.

So, people paid you to speak?

Let me put it another way for you:

My hometown newspaper had an editorial by the lead editor wherein he said that I was "the most quoted man in Georgia."

...Georgia....say no more.

 

[ATL]

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

I don't know how King voted. And any idiot that continues to call people people a liar like you do - especially when you're lying yourself is a joke.

There's no need for "you" to know how anyone voted, it's called reading historical documents.

The problem is, YOU admitted to not having read what I wrote before you dragged me into your private pissing match.

It's obvious to most here that you either plagiarize swill from someone who is as ignorant as you OR maybe you like to cherry pick from documents to get the result you want. Let me make my post understandable for you:

I did not take the side of the liberal or conservative; Republican nor Democrat. But, when some jackass comes along, trying to screw with me and tell me what I said and did not say before reading my post, it makes you look like an absolute idiot... and you seem to be on a mission to prove that perception right.

It has already been established that you're a coward. You're posting B.S. on the Internet that you don't say to people in public - and for good reason. It appears that you are too stupid to read all of a post and then offer up a civil conversation wherein you respectfully challenge any point (s) you don't understand. So little guy (and I mean that in more ways than one) while you are trying to compensate for some apparent deficit, let me tell you one more time: If you want to say stupid shit, you should take it to PM. What you're doing is not entertaining, educational, nor even remotely interesting.

Plagiarize? Cherry pick? Coward? Little guy?



Bottom line, you were caught posting shit that was not only inaccurate, but indicative of someone that has a Trump level of believability. Now you are trying to throw whatever you can at the wall to see what sticks. Everything I post, I can back up with historical documents, that is how one wins a debate, not by ad homming in hopes that people will get baffled by bullshit.

 

[Humorme]

Your moronic replies are so much pious cant so as to be devoid of any real meaning. If you can't read, go back to freaking school. I'm not a victim; I'm just the guy who points out cowards and exposes them. Your ignorance is being duly noted.

Now you're reduced to babbling. Put down the shovel, know when to just stop digging.

I'm babbling? You are spouting dung as if it were manna from Heaven. You trying to pick a fight? You won't get it done on a discussion board. The only hole we're digging here is the one to put that horseshit your're slinging into.

So, people paid you to speak?

Let me put it another way for you:

My hometown newspaper had an editorial by the lead editor wherein he said that I was "the most quoted man in Georgia."

...Georgia....say no more.

That comes across as a bigoted post. My what a vast array of emotional disorders you suffer from.

 

[Humorme]

Liberals that think they have a monopoly on understanding history or current events like to ask, what they think, are rhetorical questions so that they can pretend to school the rest of mankind.

Currently the American way is to denigrate, belittle and say stupid stuff to those you disagree with. That kind of individual would never go out in public and say that to the face of another person - it would prove to be embarrassing if they got put in their place and calling strangers liars could cause you a lot of unpleasant problems. Sooo.. the cowardly can sling skeet anonymously. But you know what they are.

The thing that is annoying is that 25 years ago, conservative organizations were willing to pay to hear me come and speak. Today, I have the same message and conservatives don't understand it. The "movement" (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) changed; I didn't. So anyone who blames the differences on conservatism v. liberalism don't know schit about history. Conservative and liberal are two labels that lost any meaning they may have had.

Because 25 years ago, you were able to get away with lying about history. Today, too many people are aware of people like you that attempt to whitewash history, like saying things such as "MLK was a Republican", or "the civil war was about state's rights".

I don't know how King voted. And any idiot that continues to call people people a liar like you do - especially when you're lying yourself is a joke.

There's no need for "you" to know how anyone voted, it's called reading historical documents.

The problem is, YOU admitted to not having read what I wrote before you dragged me into your private pissing match.

It's obvious to most here that you either plagiarize swill from someone who is as ignorant as you OR maybe you like to cherry pick from documents to get the result you want. Let me make my post understandable for you:

I did not take the side of the liberal or conservative; Republican nor Democrat. But, when some jackass comes along, trying to screw with me and tell me what I said and did not say before reading my post, it makes you look like an absolute idiot... and you seem to be on a mission to prove that perception right.

It has already been established that you're a coward. You're posting B.S. on the Internet that you don't say to people in public - and for good reason. It appears that you are too stupid to read all of a post and then offer up a civil conversation wherein you respectfully challenge any point (s) you don't understand. So little guy (and I mean that in more ways than one) while you are trying to compensate for some apparent deficit, let me tell you one more time: If you want to say stupid shit, you should take it to PM. What you're doing is not entertaining, educational, nor even remotely interesting.

Plagiarize? Cherry pick? Coward? Little guy?



Bottom line, you were caught posting shit that was not only inaccurate, but indicative of someone that has a Trump level of believability. Now you are trying to throw whatever you can at the wall to see what sticks. Everything I post, I can back up with historical documents, that is how one wins a debate, not by ad homming in hopes that people will get baffled by bullshit.

The day you post anything except bullshit I will kiss my own ass on the main street of any town in America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.

Your dumb ass isn't very smart to keep calling people a liar when you can't read beyond three sentences in any one post before getting lost in cyber space - unable to understand words over five letters and one syllable.