America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by DrafterX. 74 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
In Mississippi we know how to get it done with Republicans sweeping ALL statewide...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
One small step for man?
frankj1 Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
IIRC Robert Byrd was a Democrat until the day he died.

and how well did he fit in with the change in platforms?

so it was only 98.2% defection rate to the GOP? Probably a couple more too. Took George Wallace a while to use up his Democrat Party stationary too.

Hey Anth, sometimes we elect Republican Governors in the People's Republic of Massachusetts and my good friend tailgater will correctly tell ya they are outliers, folks who register one party while embracing most of the other party's views.
We have one now, and he will be re-re-elected most likely.
I'll vote for him, again.
frankj1 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
And what did LBJ another Democrat call the Civil Rights bill of 1957?


and who signed Kennedy's bill seven years later while committing political suicide by going up against and alienating Southern Democrats from the rest of the party? Maybe stupid? Maybe brave?
But very likely had a huge effect on the south going red.

It's just too simplistic to pull a term or group name out of history and expect that it has the same significance today.
Today's southern Democrats (no longer a subset) would not fit in with Byrd.
frankj1 Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Abrignac wrote:
They also brought the Klan. But, who really cares?

as an example of how group names and identities can change over time, in all honesty what percentage of Klan membership do you suppose is Democrat and Republican today? Do you really see the Klan aligned with the Dems the last 50 years or so? I doubt it.

Before you answer, let me say I consider all members to be from the fringe of the core values of their respective political membership, so I do not see this as incriminating one over the other...as opposed to why this sidetrack was posted in the first place...to demonize Dems...HA!
Abrignac Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
For your viewing pleasure.



The less racist the South gets, the more Republican it becomes.
Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator:

We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes.

So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.)

When he was running for president in 2000, Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court.

Al Gore’s reframing of the relevant history is the story of the Democratic party in microcosm. The party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, Reconstruction, anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question.

As recently as 2010, the Senate’s president pro tempore was former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.). Rather than acknowledge their sorry history, modern Democrats have rewritten it.

The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades.

You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.”

The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican party were suburban, prosperous New South types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist.

Is it unforgivable that Bill Clinton praised a former segregationist? No. Fulbright renounced his racist past, as did Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. It would be immoral and unjust to misrepresent the history.

What is unforgivable is the way Democrats are still using race to foment hatred. Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he uttered a few dumb words about former segregationist Strom Thurmond? He didn’t get the kind of pass Bill Clinton did when praising Fulbright. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton told a mostly black audience that “what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to another. . . . Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” She was presumably referring to voter-ID laws, which, by the way, 51 percent of black Americans support.

1
Racism has an ugly past in the Democratic party. The accusation of racism has an ugly present.

— Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. © 2015 Creators.com
frankj1 Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
Not only do I have no problem believing the South is less racist now even with a growing GOP membership, I believe it may be less racist than many areas in the North!

But I also believe that what happened in 1956 was bulldozed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and triggered both the membership switch to the GOP but also forced desegregation which has (and continues to have) worked!

I'm not gonna research, but I'm not surprised that so many GOP signed on in 1964. I bet most were not from the south though. I might be wrong, but it was still dominated by Democrat office holders. What percentage of Southern Democrat office holders did not vote for it? Different than saying Dems did not vote for it.


The South started to leave the Dem's after that. But evacuation from the Democrats for not supporting the Southern Democrat subset of politicians' racism is not the same as saying the GOP said "join us we are racists" so I won't make nor defend those charges... I still feel supporters of racism are from the fringes.
frankj1 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
ANTH!

I'm winging it here. No more big articles, OK?
You're killing me.

still love ya.
Abrignac Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
FWIW, while growing up up in Louisiana I saw how the south was considered the most racist region in the states. Then I flew off for bootcamp 7 months shy of my 19th birthday. My first duty station was in Boston, MA. From there I went to Norfolk, Elizabeth City, NC then to New Orleans, back up north to NYC then New Orleans once more before I discharged. I can say without a doubt, south Louisiana was the least racist of all of them.

Did I mention I grew up with Bill Wilkerson’s son. The same Bill Wilkerson who stood eyeball to eyeball with MLK during the Selma civil rights marches? The same Bill Wilkerson who now lives in Costa Rica and is married to a black lady. Times do change.
Abrignac Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
frankj1 wrote:
ANTH!

I'm winging it here. No more big articles, OK?
You're killing me.

still love ya.



Lol

Same here.
MACS Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
frankj1 wrote:
Southern Democrats, a real subset of the Democratic party, who converted en mass when the base rejected their positions as the push for the Civil Rights Movement got closer to reality.
Now members of the GOP.


100% FALSE and a talking point of the dems. They all would love you to believe the parties "switched sides" but it's BS and they know it.
fishinguitarman Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
Wow! Our very on book club!
frankj1 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
100% FALSE and a talking point of the dems. They all would love you to believe the parties "switched sides" but it's BS and they know it.

not switched sides. left the Dems as the rank and file supported an agenda of change they did not like.
I already said this is not to be confused with the GOP saying "join us, we hate Blacks".

What party absorbed members of the Whigs? Or the Federalist Party? Any valid connection today?
How many is enough years? 55 years enough? That would go to 1964.

You're stuck on names for parties rather than values, visions, and beliefs of members. When platforms no longer represent members, members change parties. It's why I am enrolled as "Unenrolled".
frankj1 Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
prior to the time period we are dealing with there were party policy switches and name changes...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
MACS Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
Look who supported the Civil Rights Act and who didn't. Why would racist people want to join a party that just overwhelming voted for the CRA?

Democrats associate white supremacist groups with the republicans because it behooves them to do so. It may be who the supremacist groups vote for, but that's simply because they're idiots and they believe the BS the dems spout... like a lot of minorities do. They think republicans are racist because the dems and media tell them so.
fishinguitarman Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
It’s a conundrum!
frankj1 Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
Look who supported the Civil Rights Act and who didn't. Why would racist people want to join a party that just overwhelming voted for the CRA?

Democrats associate white supremacist groups with the republicans because it behooves them to do so. It may be who the supremacist groups vote for, but that's simply because they're idiots and they believe the BS the dems spout... like a lot of minorities do. They think republicans are racist because the dems and media tell them so.

Anth supplied info on how many from each party voted but not the breakdown of where each was from. I replied to that already.

also posted info related to historical changes in party name and stances.

So let's finally deal with the current world (cuz we are getting boring wif the history)...what's your best guess as to which party (as they stand today) gets the lion's share of support from avowed racists, neo-nazis, and supremacists?

Bear in mind I am once again stating that I believe these creeps represent the fringes, not the rank and file of either party...but which party does draw their votes?
MACS Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
^Yes, but WHY??

The fringe idiots think they are voting with like minded people because that's what the media and the dems say... "the republicans are the party of racists".

Minorities think the dems are their friends because they give them free sh*t and say the rich man is the problem (ironic because all politicians are rich, except maybe the one who just got there... give 'em time). Dems support affirmative action (what, they think minorities can't be successful on their own merits?), and welfare, and are against school choice, and want socialized medicine... so the people are duped into thinking they are for them when all they are for is buying votes with taxpayer money and more government control... if throwing money and benefits at people worked, why are the projects still the projects?
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
MACS wrote:
^Yes, but WHY??

The fringe idiots think they are voting with like minded people because that's what the media and the dems say... "the republicans are the party of racists".

Minorities think the dems are their friends because they give them free sh*t and say the rich man is the problem (ironic because all politicians are rich, except maybe the one who just got there... give 'em time). Dems support affirmative action (what, they think minorities can't be successful on their own merits?), and welfare, and are against school choice, and want socialized medicine... so the people are duped into thinking they are for them when all they are for is buying votes with taxpayer money and more government control... if throwing money and benefits at people worked, why are the projects still the projects?

I gotta say this to ya from the heart...that is silly on one hand and a bit insulting to minorities on the other.

People who aren't haters but vote in opposition to your beliefs are doing so because they are getting duped by the Dems?

Haters who do vote the way you do are being fooled by the media? Like they get their news from CNN? HA!

That's just as silly as libs accusing his supporters of being hypnotized by Trump.

All very silly.

Minorities can take care of themselves and be successful on their own merits, but are not smart enough to digest the same info you have successfully filtered so as to come to the only correct way to vote?
Basically saying they aren't able to figure it out.

Insulting.
MACS Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
That's one way to look at it.

I'm not necessarily speaking of minorities only and I never said anyone isn't smart enough to figure it out. Some people have. BigGrin
MACS Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,773
Here's where I stand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqbk9cDX0l0
frankj1 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
I'm in!
Abrignac Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,273
Is this where you can buy a 🍺?
frankj1 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
yup.
I enjoyed yesterday, thanks guys.
DrafterX Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Beers, BigMacs a d a ride to da polls buy alot of votes... Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12