The Democrats War Against Blacks (Guest Post)

By 42 Comments 12,510 views

kkk
 

The Democratic Party has been waging war against Blacks since the election of the first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson who owned slaves. They were the party of slavery whose voters included the cotton farmers.

In their party platforms from 1840 to 1860, the Democrats supported slavery. In the 1860 elections, the country was deeply divided. Abraham Lincoln and his main Republican rival, William H Seward both wanted to abolish slavery. As we all know Lincoln won the nomination and later was elected President.

On the Democratic side, the party was split between Northern and Southern Democrats. The southern favorite, John Breckinridge wanted a Federal law protecting slave owners’ rights in the new states. His chief rival, Stephen Douglas was moderate and did not think a Federal law was needed. But he, like his rival Breckinridge, also wanted the state’s residents to decide whether or not to have slavery.

We all know the rest of the story. Lincoln’s election sparked the Civil War. After the war was over  and slaves were emancipated, the Democrats became the party of Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

The Jim Crow laws of enforced segregation started in about 1877 after the withdrawal of Union troops from the south. Many southern whites were resentful that their former slaves became their social equals and competed with them for jobs.

Renown historian Eric Foner wrote, “In effect, the Klan (KKK) was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”

The last Democrat linked to the KKK was Senator Robert Byrd, who died as recently as 2010 while still in office. Like many Democrats, he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yes, it’s true that Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) signed the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964. But there is more to the story. There were actually two LBJ’s. The LBJ before 1957 was different than the LBJ from 1957 onwards.

Before 1957, LBJ was a segregationist like all southern Democrats.  He opposed laws against lynching, eliminating poll taxes, Truman’s civil rights programs, federal funding to segregated schools and killed the Civil Rights Bill in 1956.  But in 1957, there was a change.

LBJ supported and helped pass the watered down Civil Rights Act 1957 that was proposed by the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. LBJ, then Senate Majority Leader, had so watered down the Eisenhower’s proposal as to render it ineffective. Even so, many Democratic Senators, including the liberal icon John F. Kennedy voted against it!

Val Washington, director of minorities of the Republican Party wrote a letter to LBJ.

He wrote, “If the Senate had passed the Eisenhower Civil Rights Act as the House did, it could have been pointed to as a beacon which would have cast its light over all the world. … At the bar of world  opinion, the US has lost one of its greatest sales point of a democracy – equality for all its citizens …

Since you have been so persistent in your anti-civil rights attitude, one would have to be suspect of your supposed change of heart. I am positive, Senator, that neither you, nor any of your Southern colleagues would vote for this Bill unless you know that it is meaningless and ineffective.

Effective or not, it was a turning point for LBJ. It was the first time he supported a Civil Rights Bill. He claimed to be a supporter of equal rights for Blacks. At the same time he could appease his southern voters in that the Act was totally ineffective. He reminds me of the two faced Greek god, Janus.

After Kennedy was assassinated, LBJ became President. He had to face elections in 1964 and knew that he could not win as a segregationist. Outside of the south, the mood of the country was overwhelmingly against racial discrimination. Thus he had to ditch once and for all, his old positions on race and segregation.

He passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending segregation. In 1965, he passed the Voting Rights Act, which ended restrictions on the voting rights of Blacks. The Democratic Party rightfully feared losing the South because of the newly franchised Blacks. After all, the Democrats were so mean to them for more than a hundred years.

But LBJ confidently told two governors, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.

He succeeded so far! He achieved the impossible after the passing of the Civil Rights Act 1964, the Voting Rights Act 1965 and the Great Society programs. After that Blacks became solid supporters of the Democratic Party.

(A piece of irony is that Democrats got the credit for passing the Civil Rights Act 1964 because LBJ opposed the Eisenhower Civil Rights Act 1957 in its original form. Otherwise, Republicans would have gotten the credit.)

Prior to that, the majority of Blacks voted (when they could) Republican. In fact, Alveda King, the niece of Dr Martin Luther King said that her uncle was a Republican.

Today, the continued expansion of the welfare state by LBJ’s successors has made many people dependent on the government and so they tend to vote Democratic. Unfortunately, the Black community is over represented among the ranks of the poor. That is one reason why they solidly support the Democrats blissfully unaware that the Democrats had screwed them up throughout American history.

And they continue to do so even today. The welfare state that LBJ and his successors set up has ruined the black family. All throughout the era of slavery and Jim Crow, the Black family was intact. Today, the welfare state has destroyed the family.

In the past, fathers were needed to care for the children. Today, a pregnant woman can depend on the state to take care of the family. Fathers have become superfluous. As a result, the number of children born out of wedlock increased from 7% in 1964 to 41% in 2012.

Among Blacks today, 70% of children are born to single mothers, according to Professor Walter Williams. He said, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do. And that is to destroy the Black family.”

Children that grew out of single parent families have a far greater tendency to become poor and commit crimes than those who grow up in traditional two parent families. This is a key cause of black poverty and crime. The black poverty rate in 2010 was 27% or three times that of whites.

Blacks account for nearly half of homicides cases and 55% of robbery cases even though they are only 13% of the population. The Democrats are happy to keep them poor and dependent on government. At the same time, they teach them to blame their suffering not on their wrong policies but on white racism.

In a sense, Blacks are still enslaved, this time to the Democratic Party Plantation with chains of dependency and resentment. According to many writers, Black income rose faster before 1964 than after. So the Great Society programs did not help.

The most convincing proof that liberal policies (I call it Socialism) do not work is to look at cities that were run by Democrats for a long time. Take a look at say Detroit, a poor crime ridden city run by Democrats for over 50 years. Median household income was $26,325 for the period 2009 to 2013. This makes it one of the poorest cities in the US. The Black population is about 83%. Since they are the majority group, racial discrimination cannot be the reason why there are so many jobless people

The main cause of poverty is the breakdown of the Black family, but Democrats blame it on racism. All they want to do is to keep them angry and dependent on the government so that they will keep voting Democrat. LBJ’s plan is working so far when he said, “I will keep the niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

But what about black ‘civil rights’ leaders like Al Sharpton? What are they doing to help Blacks? Instead of helping blacks by repairing the black family, they are more interested in keeping them poor, dependent and angry at white America so that they continue to vote Democratic.

A Black traitor to his own race is one definition of “Uncle Tom.” Al Sharpton is an Uncle Tom, selling out the Black people for the electoral interests of the Democratic Party. He is so different from Martin Luther King a genuine civil rights leader.

Besides keeping blacks enslaved, the Democratic Party is a staunch supporter of abortions. And the ethnic group that disproportionately abort their babies are (you guessed it) blacks. About 40% of abortions in the US are done by black women.

It is not well known that liberal icon Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist and racist. She wanted to improve the human race by discouraging the propagation of inferior people and she considered Blacks to be inferior.  She was popular with the Ku Klux Klan which invited her to speak.

She wrote to Dr Clarence Gamble, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Despite all these and present injustices done to the Black community, Blacks still solidly support the Democratic Party. LBJ must be laughing in his grave.

A successful businessman and author, Robert H. Lee has spent years extensively researching the history of nations for his book Saving Democracy from Suicide. (LINK: www.savingdemocracyfromsuicide.com) A self-professed Americaphile, Lee resides in Singapore with his family, but he previous lived in the United States where he went to the University of Michigan for his MBA.

42 Responses to “The Democrats War Against Blacks (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Bill

    For their long list of monumental failures, you have to grant Democrats and liberals their due; they are damned good at propaganda. Too bad people can’t eat lies.

  2. 2

    wordsmith

    A Black traitor to his own race is one definition of “Uncle Tom.” Al Sharpton is an Uncle Tom, selling out the Black people for the electoral interests of the Democratic Party.

    I think people should rescue the term “Uncle Tom”. When blacks want to call black conservatives “Uncle Tom”, they should take it as a compliment.

    In Harriet Beecher Stowe’s abolitionist 1852 novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Uncle Tom is a martyr, not a sell-out. His devotion to his fellow slaves is so unshakable that he sacrifices a chance for freedom and, ultimately, his life to help them.

    Sharpton considers the negative meaning to be “updated”. I think it needs a new revamp, back to an accurate reflection of the literary character.

  3. 5

    Tom

    What a fascinating premise: Black people were the victims of virulent racism for generations, particularly and brutally victimized by white southern racists Democrats. But then at some point in the 60s, all those white southerners became Republicans, and this just happened to coincide with the disappearance of racism from the face of the Earth; the breaking of cause and effect in American history as far as black history is concerned; and the instantaneous rise of a self-defeating moral turpitude within the African American community.

    And they continue to do so even today. The welfare state that LBJ and his successors set up has ruined the black family. All throughout the era of slavery and Jim Crow, the Black family was intact. Today, the welfare state has destroyed the family.

    Why are so many conservatives apparently fond of the premise that black people were better off as slaves? Things that really happened, like the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and the mass incarceration of black males today, does it occur to anyone that these might have a considerable impact upon the fortunes of the nuclear black family? Or is it easier to ignore (or in the case of this post, distort) history and just blame it on “Democrats”, or insinuate it’s a congenital black thing?. When you wipe away history and the truth, it makes it easier to sell your audience on shamelessly stigmatizing women and children who avail themselves of government assistance, as if that in and of itself is a moral failing.

    The most convincing proof that liberal policies (I call it Socialism) do not work is to look at cities that were run by Democrats for a long time. Take a look at say Detroit, a poor crime ridden city run by Democrats for over 50 years. Median household income was $26,325 for the period 2009 to 2013. This makes it one of the poorest cities in the US. The Black population is about 83%. Since they are the majority group, racial discrimination cannot be the reason why there are so many jobless people

    Is this a joke? You can’t just cherry pick a city with a lot of black people to make your “interesting” point on race, ignore the entire economic history of region, and then pretend that Detroit’s fortunes prove some silly point about liberals and black people. Let’s try facts for a change, instead of crazy neo-confederate rantings. Are there other liberal cities in America? I would like to hear your break down of the horrors of San Francisco. As for Boston, only two of the five best universities in the world! What a disgrace for them.

    The main cause of poverty is the breakdown of the Black family, but Democrats blame it on racism. All they want to do is to keep them angry and dependent on the government so that they will keep voting Democrat. LBJ’s plan is working so far when he said, “I will keep the niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

    Or perhaps the cause of the breakdown of the black family is racism, at the very least, institutional racism. There are 1 million black Americans in prison. Blacks are incarcerated at six times the rate of whiles. I wonder if that has anything to do with why daddy isn’t home for Christmas.

    .

  4. 6

    Tom

    @wordsmith:

    @Nanny G: Well, the next time a black conservative is “insulted” with the label “Uncle Tom”, he should turn it around.

    That’s a great take away. The most important thing to consider is whether Thomas Sowell is somehow being insulted by liberals, not whether conservatives find it normal to muse whether his life would be so much better if he was toiling in a cotton field.

  5. 7

    retire05

    @Tom:

    What an interesting theory to be floated on a conservative website: black people were better off as slaves.

    Can you point me to that part of the article that said that? I seemed to have missed it. And just how many blacks over the age of 100 do you think were alive when Dr. King marched on Selma?

    You can’t just cherry pick a city with a lot of black people to make your “interesting” point on race, ignore the entire economic history of region, and then pretend that Detroit’s fortunes prove some silly point about liberals and black people.

    Hello? Chicago? St. Louis?

    Or perhaps the cause of the breakdown of the black family is racism, at the very least, institutional racism. There are 1 million black Americans in prison. Blacks are incarcerated at six times the rate of whiles. I wonder if that has anything to do with why daddy is home for Christmas.

    I suggest you read more Shelby Steel, Starr Parker, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and Walter Williams and less Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. And did it ever occur to you that those black inmates have the mailing address they do because they committed crimes, were charge, prosecuted and found guilty by a jury of 12 other Americans?

    And then there is this little piece of idiocy from you, Tom:

    Wipe away the obvious reasons and while stigmatizing women and children who avail themselves of government assistance, as if that in and of itself is a moral failing.

    It is a moral failing, Tom. Black families used to be the strongest of all the segments of our society, and to this day, most of the blacks I know would rather starve than accept government welfare and be placed on Uncle Sam’s plantation. But then, most of the blacks I know are Christians who care for their families and their friends in need and feel that gubmit cheese is an insult to their ability to care for themselves.

    But hey, if it makes you feel better about the total failure of black men to care for their children, or stay on the right side of the law, on whites, I’m sure you’ll jump at the chance to blame anyone but those responsible, themselves.

  6. 8

    Nanny G

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/04/09/a-rising-share-of-the-u-s-black-population-is-foreign-born/
    What might have been a trend up until now might not be a trend in a few years…..

    There are four times more black immigrants in the U.S. today than in 1980.
    Black immigrants now make up 8.7 percent of the U.S. black population — or almost triple the percentage since 1990.
    The Census Bureau is projecting that by 2060 black immigrants will make up 16.5 percent of the black population.

    As a transplant from LB, CA to Utah I can tell you the differences between black people who lived in LB (who claimed they came from slaves) and the black people in Utah (who are immigrants) is mind blowing.
    I admit I don’t miss the gangsta clothing, pants-on-the-ground, or the loud rap music, or the entitlement mentality one little bit.
    It is nice to hear English being clearly spoken and people taking about their jobs and retirement plans, their birthplace in Kenya or Nigeria and the happiness they found here in the land of opportunity.

  7. 9

    Greg

    Despite all these and present injustices done to the Black community, Blacks still solidly support the Democratic Party. LBJ must be laughing in his grave.

    So, the theory is that black folk are just too simple to figure out that it has always been the GOP that has best represented their interests?

  8. 10

    Bill

    @Tom:

    Why are so many conservatives apparently fond of the premise that black people were better off as slaves?

    Why do you hate women and gays? For, that same conclusion can be drawn from your statements as that conservatives think blacks are better off as slaves is drawn from this. In fact, the entire article is about how much better off blacks are NOT being slaves; slaves to the liberal agenda. For, it has been exhibited that liberal social policies do more to ensure blacks stay in poverty (and thus slaves to the Democrats) than helping them OUT of poverty. This was also proven when Republicans forced the Clinton administration to reform welfare; the conditions of many that were on welfare improved once they were weened off it. Of course, this does not help the Democrat agenda, so Obama has unilaterally repealed many of those reforms. So, the actual question is, why do blacks not see how Democrats use them for their own political power? Why are liberals so racist and insensitive?

    @Greg:

    So, the theory is that black folk are just too simple to figure out that it has always been the GOP that has best represented their interests?

    Well, that WAS the theory put forth by liberals fighting positive vote ID because minorities are, apparently, too stupid to acquire an acceptable photo ID. Right? However, the misconception blacks may have about how they are treated by Republicans as opposed to being used by Democrats is not difficult to explain. First, their current “civil rights” leaders, Jackson, Sharpton, Jealous and others are as bad as any white racist when it comes to making any and all issues about their personal power and enrichment. Second, as long as the left controls the media, whatever message the left wants to be the truth they will present as the truth. So, no matter that all minorities do better under a capitalistic system where well-paying jobs are available to all, the left would rather have them on a short leash, doling out what THEY feel the individual needs and creating an addiction to government aid. You can see LBJ’s own words to verify that strategy, exploiting human life for political power. Why are you liberals so racist and exploiting?

  9. 11

    Ditto

    He passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ending segregation. In 1965, he passed the Voting Rights Act,

    Both acts were passed by Republican votes in Congress.

    @wordsmith:

    I think people should rescue the term “Uncle Tom”. When blacks want to call black conservatives “Uncle Tom”, they should take it as a compliment.

    I agree with Wordsmith. Quimbo and Sambo were the once slave black overseers of Simon Legree who made sure that that the slaves stayed on the plantation and did what their white master ordered. Uncle Tom was a hero who stood up for freedom for his fellow blacks and refused to be broken by Legree and his loyal black turncoats.

    Ergo; If Conservative blacks are Uncle Tom(s), then logical character reassignments would have Eric Holder and Al Sharpton playing the part of Quimbo and Sambo with former NAZI tool George Soros as Legree.

    The Democratic party still supports slavery. What has changed is that they have replaced plantation owners with their Progressive elite ruled, all powerful socialist State, and are making slaves of all the common citizenry.

  10. 12

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    The Democratic party still supports slavery. What has changed is that they have replaced plantation owners with their Progressive elite ruled, all powerful socialist State, and are making slaves of all the common citizenry.

    What’s changed is that the members of the Southern Democracic party who supported segregation and Jim Crow left the party in the 60s when Kennedy and Johnson began to embrace Civil Rights legislation. I know this is an inconvenient fact for some Republicans to contend with, but it doesn’t really take take more than a rudimentary understanding of history, demographics and the electoral map. Conservatives like to use the word “Democrat” when it suits their purposes, but there is no connection between the Southern Democrats of the first half of the 20th century and today’s Democrats, just like there is no connection between the Republicans of Lincoln’s time and today’s. The Radical Republicans who supported emancipation had their strength in New England. Does that sound like the Republicans of today? Using words dishonestly to prop up a false premise is a house of cards. Tryi writing the history of slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Acts using words like “conservative” and “liberal” and see how that turns out.

  11. 13

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    Both acts were passed by Republican votes in Congress.

    Try being honest. Any contemporary Right Winger would have considered a Northern or Midwestern Republican in the 60s a RINO, or worse, a liberal. You know it’s true. If you’re so proud of the Civil Rights legislation, where is your voice as the contemporary GOP is attempting, with some success, to dismantle the VRA?

  12. 14

    Bill

    @Tom:

    What’s changed is that the members of the Southern Democracic party who supported segregation and Jim Crow left the party in the 60s when Kennedy and Johnson began to embrace Civil Rights legislation.

    I didn’t notice Robert Byrd leaving the Democrat party. I don’t remember George Wallace leaving the party. Recall the little slips of the tongue from Reid and Biden, characterizing Obama as something really out of the ordinary, black guy-wise. “Clean” and “articulate”, as opposed to… what, exactly?

    And, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the leftist masters regard blacks is stupid and helpless; they can’t even manage a photo ID… or realize they already have one. Reliably, they will vote they way they are paid and are easily kept on the Democrat plantation with lies and propaganda. Like yours, Tom.

    True, the Democrat of olden days is not much like the Democrat today. The old overtly racist Democrat, replete with hood and rope, failed to adjust to the needs of the times. The new Democrat has figured out how to really utilize their indentured servants, covertly… and make them like it. The results are undeniable.

  13. 15

    Tom

    @Bill:

    And, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the leftist masters regard blacks is stupid and helpless; they can’t even manage a photo ID… or realize they already have one. Reliably, they will vote they way they are paid and are easily kept on the Democrat plantation with lies and propaganda. Like yours, Tom.

    Wow. You really like to paint with a broad brush. And such a charitable picture that emerges from your phsyche. Yes, it truly is a mystery why blacks don’t embrace the enlightened viewpoint of the Right, that you so eloquently espouse.

    I really enjoy these posts that pretend to have the best interests of African Americans in mind, but in reality function as a place for people like you to make outrageously racist comments about blacks couched in concern for their well being.

  14. 16

    retire05

    @Tom:

    What’s changed is that the members of the Southern Democracic party who supported segregation and Jim Crow left the party in the 60s when Kennedy and Johnson began to embrace Civil Rights legislation.

    And just exactly who were all these Democrats that jumped to the Republican Party that you are blathering about? Name them. And remember, that includes governors, state and federal Congressman and Senators that you need to list.

    If you’re so proud of the Civil Rights legislation, where is your voice as the contemporary GOP is attempting, with some success, to dismantle the VRA?

    How so? (your answer should prove interesting)

  15. 17

    Bill

    @Tom: Oh, no, no, no, Tom Terrifically Wrong… It was YOUR party that screamed that asking for a photo ID was too much for your indentured slaves to manage. YOUR party that cried requiring an ID would disenfranchise those who vote Democrat.

    And YOUR party that launches racist attacks on any black that strays from the Democrat plantation of dependency and utility. That’s no broad brush, Tommie; that’s fact. Democrats expects their slaves to “yessuh” and “nosuh” at the appropriate times and when the think for themselves and realize who it is that shackles them into hopeless poverty for the sake of liberal power and speak out, they become “Uncle Tom”, “Oreo” and “house ni***r”. Conservatives feel, given the opportunity to advance, anyone can do so, and EXPECT them to (not expecting them to fail, as Democrats assume).

    The last thing liberals want is economic growth for it would spell the end of liberalism.

  16. 18

    Ditto

    Tom once again drags out the tired old ridiculously absurd Democrat – Republican side-switching myth (proven false the past times he tried to play that card). The false premise being that immediately following the Republican Congress passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, all the racist KKK Democrats rushed over to join with the enemy that had defeated them, and the freedom and equal rights for blacks supporting Republicans, just as eagerly and immediately switched parties to become Democrats.

    You have to be in some kind of permanent drug induced psychedelic trip to buy into that idiotic conspiracy theory.

    Interestingly enough, under a black (or 1/2 & 1/2) president, the Executive branch controlled ATF changed their background check forms so as to inquire about race and ethnicity in 2012. And what happened Monday?

    GOP Introduces Bill to Stop Race-Based ATF Questions

    On Monday, Reps. Diane Black (R-Tenn-6) and Ted Poe (R-TX-2) introduced a bill to end the ATF’s practice of trying to ascertain the race of firearm purchasers via background checks.

    (Snip)

    They (The ATF) have been “collecting this information” ever since, but claim they have “never compiled it in any database.”

    Gun dealers who do not comply with ATF requests for race and ethnicity information on purchasers can face unspecified penalties.

    Poe commented:

    Forcing citizens who are lawfully purchasing guns to disclose race and ethnicity with the threat of federal prosecution if they fail to disclose is completely unnecessary. Bottom line, if a law-abiding citizen is lawfully purchasing firearms, race and ethnicity are irrelevant.

    Representative Black spoke against the race questions by pointing out that they are just one more set of government-required steps that law-abiding citizens must go through before being allowed to exercise their rights. She said: “Law-abiding citizens should never have to play 20 questions with Uncle Sam just to access their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

    This current effort to do away with the race questions comes less than a year after Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) asked ATF director B. Todd Jones if race “has ever been used to block someone from purchasing a gun.”

    Blunt said:

    The constitutional right of a citizen to own a firearm has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It is disconcerting that the U.S. government is gathering this type of data on citizens when there is no connection between purchasing a firearm and an individual’s race or ethnicity.

    Let us not forget the racist roots of gun control.

    Black conservatives- Gun control has ‘racist’ roots

    MLK’s Arsenal and The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.

    The main purpose of racist gun control laws during the civil war and after were to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, to keep them subservient to slave owners and on the plantation. The KKK was formed during the civil war to help enforce through other than legal means, and later the Southern Democrat party continued to keep blacks unarmed and in their place. So is it any wonder that the great Democrat party held metropolises of this nation continue to keep their supposedly “free” black citizens unarmed?

    So tell us Tom, how many (once Democrat) racist Republicans are there in Obama’s administration and the ATF?

    Or for that matter, How is it that we somehow missed Freedom loving Republicans, who became Democrats, becoming Republicans again and standing against racial data collection by the ATF?

    And what have you to say for the current gun control supporting radical Democrat left (who must by your theory) be former Southern Democrats, who became Republicans, and have again become Democrats?

    Incidentally, the GOP has not ever discussed a single piece of legislation to do away with the VRA (as you claim). The only legislation they have put forth is mandatory Voter ID Yet you still can not explain how this is racist. How is it that presumably a minority member of one race is incapable of going through the rather uncomplicated process and instructions that others of another race can easily follow to obtain a legitimate ID. Is that not racist on the left’s part to so paint the mental capabilities of minorities with such a wide sweeping brush?

  17. 19

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    Tom once again drags out the tired old ridiculously absurd Democrat – Republican side-switching myth (proven false the past times he tried to play that card). The false premise being that immediately following the Republican Congress passing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, all the racist KKK Democrats rushed over to join with the enemy that had defeated them, and the freedom and equal rights for blacks supporting Republicans, just as eagerly and immediately switched parties to become Democrats.

    You have to be in some kind of permanent drug induced psychedelic trip to buy into that idiotic conspiracy theory.

    Nice spin. Who were all the people voting for George Wallace in 1968 in the South? Were they bussed in from another planet? Are you contending the Southern Strategy wasn’t a real and effective strategy by the Republican Party? Nixon’s own campaign strategist, Kevin Phillips, had this to say:

    From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

    If the Southern Strategy wasn’t real, and wasn’t so successful, why did so many Republican politicians pursue it? What was the point of the Willie Horton ad if there wasn’t an audience for it?

    The issue at hand, however, is your refusal to acknowledge that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have both changed over time. The dishonesty of embracing Republican politicians and polices of the 50s and 60s that you would never personally support today is telling. So tell us, did you support when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce integration?

    Rather than hide behind the word “Democrat”, why don’t you tell us how Conservatives reacted to the Civil Rights era? Here’s your chance. What was William F Buckley Jr’s take on Selma? What about the John Birch Society? What was the National Review position on the VRA?

  18. 20

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    Incidentally, the GOP has not ever discussed a single piece of legislation to do away with the VRA (as you claim). The only legislation they have put forth is mandatory Voter ID Yet you still can not explain how this is racist. How is it that presumably a minority member of one race is incapable of going through the rather uncomplicated process and instructions that others of another race can easily follow to obtain a legitimate ID. Is that not racist on the left’s part to so paint the mental capabilities of minorities with such a wide sweeping brush?

    It’s very simple. The laws are specifically designed to make it unduly difficult for people without certain preordained forms to vote, or even to obtain them. The people writing the laws obviously know who, demographically speaking, do or don’t have certain forms of ID they claim are needed. Considering there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud, it doesn’t take a conspiracy minded person to wonder why such a carefully calibrated law exists as the one in Texas, one that will obviously have a dampening effect upon minority voting. Feel free to keep pretending that the motive behind the law isn’t clear.
    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-justice-ginsburg-racism-20141018-column.html

    The Texas law imposes the harshest voter ID regime in the country, accepting fewer forms of photo ID than even Wisconsin–not even photo IDs from Texas colleges or Veterans Affairs will allow a resident to vote. Texas will provide a photo ID to residents who can make it to an office of the Department of Public Safety, but for more than 400,000 voters, that involves a round trip of three hours or longer. The application requires a birth certificate, which can cost applicants more than $20, if it’s available at all.

  19. 21

    Bill

    @Tom:

    If the Southern Strategy wasn’t real, and wasn’t so successful, why did so many Republican politicians pursue it?

    What you post there is not racist strategy but a declaration of fact. In other words, the Democrat polices of buying votes with taxpayer dollars cannot be competed with by Republicans because Republicans have Constitutional principles by which they abide, so competing with corrupt Democrats on that field would be a losing proposition. Why don’t you find us something as overtly racist as LBJ’s declaration and how Wallace, a Democrat, made his political career on opposing segregation?

    Considering there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud,

    Just answer one question; are you lying or ignorant?

    Despite the fact that there is no way to tell a poor Republican from a poor Democrat, in actual practice, positive voter ID presented no impediment to anyone voting, did it? Where was the widespread disenfranchisement? There is far more voter fraud (ACORN, Wendy Davis campaign, Obama’s primaries, Franken’s campaign, multiple voting for Obama, voting by the dead in NY, illegal immigrants voting, Democrats encouraging illegal immigrants to vote, etc, etc, etc) than there was disenfranchisement.

    You will have to admit (or look like a fool denying it) the voter ID is the logical way to secure the vote and that the only reason Democrats object to it is because they want to incorporate the illegal immigrant vote, though blocking Democrats fraudulently controlling absentee voting will have to be tackled next.

    We just had an election in Texas with little or no issues with voter ID. Why doesn’t the LA Times report on the illegal immigrant ID’s California is issuing that have almost no difference from legal citizens’ drivers licenses, making it practically inevitable that illegal immigrants will be voting in California?

    Face it: without lies and corruption and the exploitation of minorities, the liberal ideology would cease to exist.

  20. 22

    retire05

    @Tom:

    it doesn’t take a conspiracy minded person to wonder why such a carefully calibrated law exists as the one in Texas, one that will obviously have a dampening effect upon minority voting. Feel free to keep pretending that the motive behind the law isn’t clear.

    The Texas law imposes the harshest voter ID regime in the country, accepting fewer forms of photo ID than even Wisconsin–not even photo IDs from Texas colleges or Veterans Affairs will allow a resident to vote. Texas will provide a photo ID to residents who can make it to an office of the Department of Public Safety, but for more than 400,000 voters, that involves a round trip of three hours or longer. The application requires a birth certificate, which can cost applicants more than $20, if it’s available at all.

    This was the garbage spewed by Eric Holder’s DOJ during arguments against Texas’ Voter I.D. laws. When required by the court to present Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office with a list of names of Texas residents that lacked valid I.D., the DOJ list included one Kay Hutchison. I imagine it gave the judge the chuckles when it was learned that Kay Hutchison, who the DOJ claimed lacked I.D., was none other that sitting U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the polls; the DOJ argument was destroyed. In the very first election requiring I.D., minority votes actually increased, markedly.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/opinion/preston-texas-id-laws/index.html

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/02/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-texas

    So a traditionally low voter turnout election actually saw major increases in voter activity.

    As to registering voters, or allowing them to vote, using a student I.D. nope. It is not a “legal” form of I.D. A student may attend college in Arizona but is still a legal resident of New York. That student has the option of a) returning home to vote including during early voting periods or b) requesting a mail in ballot.

    The very people that the left screamed would not be able to get voter registration cards in Texas were, once again, shown to be talking out their rear ends as voter registration, AND VOTING, increased in those very areas the left claimed would see voter suppression.

    As to the number of voter fraud being so low that we should not worry about it or work to prevent it, do you feel the same way about other laws that are broken, or do you just think it is not a problem because if fraud was cleaned up at the polls it would put a damper on Democrats being able to steal elections?

  21. 23

    Tom

    @Bill:

    There is far more voter fraud (ACORN, Wendy Davis campaign, Obama’s primaries, Franken’s campaign, multiple voting for Obama, voting by the dead in NY, illegal immigrants voting, Democrats encouraging illegal immigrants to vote, etc, etc, etc) than there was disenfranchisement.

    And you evidence is… where? I presented links to multiple academic and government studies and you counter with nothing. You seem to enjoy writing things in debate that have no basis in fact. I hope that makes you feel good, but it does nothing to move the needle in your direction. The type of voter fraud ID laws are designed to stop is practically non-existent.

    You will have to admit (or look like a fool denying it) the voter ID is the logical way to secure the vote and that the only reason Democrats object to it is because they want to incorporate the illegal immigrant vote, though blocking Democrats fraudulently controlling absentee voting will have to be tackled next.

    Voter ID is a fix to a problem that doesn’t exist. The fact that ID laws designed by Republicans also just happen to target groups that traditionally vote Democrat is certainly interesting, no? What is being fixed exactly? Elections?

    So let’s examine your premise. Illegals are walking into voting precincts to vote. They go up to a table and give an address and a name. Then they vote. So where are they getting the names and addresses? What about when they walk up and that person has already voted? Or if the real person comes in later to vote and is told that a ballot was already cast under that name? But this almost never happens. We would know. The people working at the polling station would know. The people whose names were used would know. So why aren’t we hearing about it, Bill?

  22. 24

    Bill

    @Tom: Let me see if I got this straight… you never heard of the ACORN scandal that got it disbanded? Really? And you have chosen to actually go out somewhere and lecture others about the lack of voter fraud?

    The Windy Wendy Davis campaign got caught on tape bragging about stealing voter registration information to commit fraud.

    http://www.independentsentinel.com/bombshell-dems-trying-to-turn-texas-blue-are-committing-voter-fraud/

    http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/uncategorized/democrats-run-illegal-voter-scheme-to-turn-texas-blue

    Forging voter registration signature

    http://downtrend.com/ellsworth/breaking-project-veritas-catches-wendy-davis-campaign-supporters-planning-voter-fraud

    Voter ID is a fix to a problem that doesn’t exist. The fact that ID laws designed by Republicans also just happen to target groups that traditionally vote Democrat is certainly interesting, no? What is being fixed exactly? Elections?

    I have asked numerous times, always with no answer; do you have the courage to answer how, exactly, voter ID targets any specific party? Is it simply assumed Democrats are too stupid to get an acceptable voter ID?

    So let’s examine your premise. Illegals are walking into voting precincts to vote. They go up to a table and give an address and a name. Then they vote. So where are they getting the names and addresses?

    See above. Get it now? ACORN? Turn Texas Blue? Hello?!?

    Democrats ENCOURAGE illegal immigrants to vote, even though if they get caught, they could be prosecuted. Remind me again, who exploits minorities, Tom?

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/4627/thanks-to-democrats-masses-of-illegals-are-voting-in-us-and-state-elections/

    http://patterico.com/2014/10/30/james-okeefe-catches-democrats-encouraging-people-they-believe-to-be-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

    So why aren’t we hearing about it, Bill?

    Well, I have heard about it, but then again, I have not chosen to impose self-inflicted ignorance upon myself. Perhaps you should pay less attention to those propaganda emails you subsist on and do a bit of research on your own. Ask some of those questions you are so afraid to hear the answers to. It WILL increase your intelligence.

    But, anything would be an improvement.

  23. 25

    retire05

    @Tom:

    Voter ID is a fix to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    But apparently cattle rustling is a problem since we have laws on the books of many states that deal with it.

    Illegals are walking into voting precincts to vote. They go up to a table and give an address and a name. Then they vote. So where are they getting the names and addresses?

    The last time I checked, cemeteries are public places. Many names of the dead can be found on tomb stones. Just pick one. Then do a search of that person on Ancestry.com and up pops their Social Security number and death information.
    Now, walk into any Post Office and fill out a MotorVoter registration card using your address and the dead person’s SS#. If the state doesn’t have a record of that person’s death on state records (say the person lived in Arizona and you are applying to vote in Missouri) chances are you will be sent a voter registration card.

    It is the same process that has been used by those that sell not only fake Social Security cards, but state driver’s licenses as well, for decades. And the beauty behind the Democrat passed Motor Voter Act is that there is no requirement to prove who you are or if you are legally allowed to vote. But, I’m sure that you, as the hard core leftist you are, supports that.
    What about when they walk up and that person has already voted? Or if the real person comes in later to vote and is told that a ballot was already cast under that name?

  24. 26

    another vet

    @retire05: I know for a fact my SSN was being used someone else and may still be in use by that person. His last name was Rodriguez. It came right of out of the mouth of an employee for the State of Illinois. When I asked what they were going to do about it, he said “nothing”.

  25. 27

    joccol

    http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/15/klan-members-democrats-desperate-deflections-racist-party.html

    The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a far right organization, advocating white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration stances. Their end goal was, is and always has been racial subordination, and to this end they fought way back in their founding against voting rights of black people and the right to keep and bear arms for black people. In Southern cities they opposed unions. They recruit in this century using issues of illegal immigration, urban crime, civil unions and same-sex marriage.

    These positions align with the modern day Republican Party’s policies on many issues

  26. 28

    Ditto

    @Tom:

    Tom: Who were all the people voting for George Wallace in 1968 in the South?

    They certainly weren’t Republicans. Republicans voted for Nixon. Prior to 1967, George Wallace was a staunch segregationist Democrat. In 1968 voters from the American Independent party voted for their candidate Wallace. But since you bring up him up, let’s look beyond the 1968 Presidential election into Wallace’s other presidential campaigns:

    Through his divisive actions, Wallace won a national following that convinced him to seek the 1964 Democratic Party nomination for president. (Snip) With no chance to defeat incumbent Lyndon Johnson, however, Wallace ultimately backed out of the 1964 race and began making plans for 1968.

    (Snip)

    George again decided to seek the Democratic Party nomination in 1972, rather than run for the American Independent Party ticket again. In the Democratic primary, Wallace wreaked more havoc than he had as an independent in 1968. On May 15, 1972 Arthur Bremer tried to assassinate Wallace shooting him 5 times and leaving George paralyzed below the waist and in constant pain for the rest of his life. The next day, Wallace won 39% of Maryland’s votes and 51 of Michigan’s votes, as someDemocrats registered their opposition to busing. At the Democratic National Convention in July 1972, a wheelchair-bound Wallace received an ovation when he addressed the delegates.

    So clearly in 1972 there were still racistDemocrats in the Democrat party who were still supporting George Wallace who remained a Democrat and continued to win reelection campaigns as a Democratic party candidate.

    Oops. Didn’t your ridiculous myth tell us that these Democrats had changed their party affiliation to Republican? How embarrassing for you.

    What about some of the Democrat governors and members of Congress who were known segregationists?

    If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.

    Hardly supportive of your myth.

    The switch myth is based on three significant events that have been endlessly spun by Democrats and their minions:

    1. Barry Goldwater’s stance on the Civil Right Act of 1964. Goldwater opposed that bill as written because he believed it to be unconstitutional, usurping state and individual rights. Goldwater had been a founding member of Arizona’s NAACP and had voted for earlier civil rights legislation.

    2. The Southern Strategy, in which the Republican Party strove to show southern Democrats that by continuing to vote for racist Democrats they were voting against their interests. Utilizing unsavory political bigots to help win votes for Republicans caused GOP opponents to fabricate the purpose of that political strategy.

    3. The eventual turn of the American South from Blue to Red. This claim is easily refuted by the fact that the “Deep South” took 30 years to even begin to change from Democrat to Republican. It was the peripheral South, including Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia, where many working-class transplants from the North and other parts of the country saw that the Republican Party was the party whose policies favored business and commerce and individual success. After all, those transplants had moved south because of their jobs.

    Tom: The laws are specifically designed to make it unduly difficult for people without certain preordained forms to vote, or even to obtain them.

    Yes certain essential forms documenting that the person signing-up is actually eligible to vote. Which is as it should be.

    Tom: So tell us, did you support when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce integration?

    I wasn’t born yet, so I could hardly have been capable of taking any political position. I have always pretty much ignored anything commentator William Buckley had to say. I have never considered the Southern Democrat party segregationists or their supported KKK brothers as any kind of “conservative.” instead I consider them to be progressive fascist elitists right along with your fellow racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson. But of course, your main purpose in asking these questions is to change the subject away from the Democrat party’s war against blacks. So let’s go back to that, the subject of this thread, shall we?

    Debunking the Myth: GOP and Democrats Switched Positions on Race

    One need look only at the lack of economic progress made in the black community because of Democratic policies. For example, Thomas Sowell explains,

    Over the years, some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats, from the local to the national level. As far back as the Great Depression of the 1930s, liberal Democrats imposed policies that had counterproductive effects on blacks. None cost blacks more jobs than minimum-wage laws. Minimum-wage laws around the world have a track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities.

    Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” which gave rise to the welfare state has had a devastating effect on black families:

    The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks in particular. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women. Today the illegitimacy rates stand at 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for African Americans specifically.

    More reading debunking Tom’s favorite illogical, ridiculous, malicious and lie infused myth::

    The Myth of the Racist Republicans

    ANOTHER LIBERAL LIE EXPOSED: The Myth of the Southern Strategy

    The Myth of Republican Racism

  27. 29

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    So clearly in 1972 there were still racistDemocrats in the Democrat party who were still supporting George Wallace who remained a Democrat and continued to win reelection campaigns as a Democratic party candidate.

    Oops. Didn’t your ridiculous myth tell us that these Democrats had changed their party affiliation to Republican? How embarrassing for you.

    What about some of the Democrat governors and members of Congress who were known segregationists?

    Ah, still being obtuse. You can’t seem to admit – or comprehend – that political parties change, thus the ridiculousness of conservative claiming liberal triumphs based solely upon the word “Republican”. Would Charles Sumner and his politics have more in common with a contemporary Republican or Democrat? What’s more timeless, principles or political parties? If you claim personal consistency with the Republican party over the past fifty years then you have very fluid principles indeed. Is that what you’re claiming?

    Of course Wallace pandered to racist Southern Democrats, but what does that have to do with, say, a Northeastern liberal in the 21st century who votes Democrat? Nothing. To try to link the two is absurd. This is a clumsy evasion that seeks to downplay the simple fact that for the last 200 years to this day, the proponents of States Rights and Nullification and the opponents of Federal attempts to legislate rights, have by and large been white conservatives, with he largest concentration in the South. The Southern Democrats and Wallace openly appealed to race. Starting with Nixon, the Republicans began consolidating the South through a similar, although more opaque and coded, strategy. To this very day, this is true: we see it in Republican led Voter ID laws. we see it when Scott Walker refuses to repudiate claims that President Obama is a Muslim. The interesting question, to me, is why you hide from your philosophical inheritance? Why do you want to glom onto liberal victories from the past which can’t be reconciled with your current political convictions?

    Yes certain essential forms documenting that the person signing-up is actually eligible to vote. Which is as it should be.

    To you maybe, but where exactly in the Constitution does it say that? You can’t unduly burden a person’s right to vote, which is the sole purpose of these laws.

    Re. the Southern Strategy, your link conveniently ignores the fact that many Republicans have admitted this was so, including Nixon’s own political strategist, Kevin Philips, as quoted above. Do you want more quotes from Republicans? The fact of the matter is that almost all politically affiliated white Southerners were Democrats at the end of 50s and 25 years later that same demographic were almost entirely Republicans. You say the two are unconnected. So if they aren’t in some large part the same people, you tell me what happened. Was there a mass migration I’m unaware of?

  28. 30

    Tom

    @Ditto:

    I wasn’t born yet, so I could hardly have been capable of taking any political position. I have always pretty much ignored anything commentator William Buckley had to say. I have never considered the Southern Democrat party segregationists or their supported KKK brothers as any kind of “conservative.” instead I consider them to be progressive fascist elitists right along with your fellow racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson. But of course, your main purpose in asking these questions is to change the subject away from the Democrat party’s war against blacks. So let’s go back to that, the subject of this thread, shall we?

    No, the main purpose is to point out how incompatible your true political convictions are with the specific reality of what you claim to support. ” Eisenhower was a Republican” is a flimsy pretext for a modern day conservative to claim kinship. As demonstrated, when offered the opportunity to speak to specifics, you flounder and evade. Your weak response hinges on a rhetorical technicality. Let me rephrase: were you alive, and based upon your personal political philosophy, would you have supported Eisenhower when he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce integration?

  29. 31

    retire05

    @Tom:

    Of course Wallace pandered to racist Southern Democrats, but what does that have to do with, say, a Northeastern liberal in the 21st century who votes Democrat?

    Yet, George Wallace took 51% of the primary vote in Michigan. Now, perhaps you would like to tell me exactly what part of “the South” Michigan is in, because, relying on my elementary education, Michigan was part of the Midwest, also considered “North” due to its involvement in the War of Aggression Against The South.

    It was the peripheral South, including Tennessee, Texas, and Georgia, where many working-class transplants from the North and other parts of the country saw that the Republican Party was the party whose policies favored business and commerce and individual success. After all, those transplants had moved south because of their jobs.

    Texas, now considered the reddest state in the Union, did not turn red until during George W. Bush’s first term as governor. Until that point, Democrats controlled the Texas Legislature.

    This is a clumsy evasion that seeks to downplay the simple fact that for the last 200 years to this day, the proponents of States Rights and Nullification and the opponents of Federal attempts to legislate rights, have by and large been white conservatives, with he largest concentration in the South.

    I realize that you progressive liberals would love nothing more than to abolish the 10th Amendment and turn total control over to the Federal government. But that ain’t gonna happen. What is ironic is that many of the states with the highest number of people of color are the very states that support state’s rights to this day. Texas, being a minority majority state, is the leader in protecting state’s rights as designed by the authors of the U.S. Constitution who, I promise you, were much smarter than you could ever hope to be, Tom.

    To this very day, this is true: we see it in Republican led Voter ID laws. we see it when Scott Walker refuses to repudiate claims that President Obama is a Muslim.

    The lefts whines of voter suppression due to Voter I.D. laws has been resoundingly disproven, time after time. The very next election after Texas’ Voter I.D. law passed, an amazing increase in minority voting happened. Try as he may, Eric Holder and his Department of [In]Justice could never prove that any person had ever had their votes, or their right to vote, disenfranchised because of Voter I.D. laws.

    And why should Scott Walker even comment on the religious beliefs of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.? Does Scott Walker have the ability to see what is in Obama’s heart? No. Obama claims to be a Christian (albeit of the Black Liberation Theology kind) but his actions say much, much more about his true beliefs. While he blathers on, falsely, I might add, about Christian crusades that happened hundreds of years ago, he cannot bring himself to say the words “radical Islam” although the King of Jordan does not seem to have that problem, although he is Muslim.

    Voter fraud is a product of the left. I suggest you research Box 13 and the Chicago Kennedy/Nixon elections of 1960.

  30. 32

    Redteam

    @Tom:

    To you maybe, but where exactly in the Constitution does it say that? You can’t unduly burden a person’s right to vote, which is the sole purpose of these laws.

    Tom, that is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen you make, and for you that’s huge.
    Every since I’ve lived in Louisiana, when I go to vote, I have to show my drivers license. Everyone has to show either that or a photo ID of some sort. Since it is required of ‘everyone’ then it’s not an’unduly burden’ to anyone. It’s duly on everyone. I think, to not require that someone voting in my district, that may nullify my vote, is legally qualified to vote is an injustice to me. Knowing that I am a legal voter, I want anyone voting against me to be legal also.

    Just curious, Tom, in your state are you required to register to vote? Is that an unduly hardship? Do you have to show any ID to vote? is that an unduly hardship. Do you want other voters in your precinct that nullify your vote to be legal voters?

  31. 33

    Redteam

    @Tom: 5

    But then at some point in the 60s, all those white southerners became Republicans, and this just happened to coincide with the disappearance of racism from the face of the Earth;

    let’s see now, What year was it that Robert Byrd switched over to the Repubs? I don’t seem to recall. But I will admit he wasn’t a southerner, being from that noble yankee state of West Virginia.

  32. 34

    Redteam

    @Tom: I notice you never do name any Dimocrats that switched over to the Republican party. Herman Talmadge was a Dimocrat gov of Georgia in the 50’s and he didd in 2002, still a Dimocrat.

  33. 35

    Bill

    @Redteam: Surely you remember the Republican Alabama governor, George Wallace?

    How about the Republican President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, who said:

    http://www.quotes.net/quote/57364

    I wonder, Tom, what are the specific racist acts committed by Republicans? You liberals are having a lot of trouble accusing your opponents while you carry the burden of your on racist history, not the least of which is the ongoing support for Planned Parenthood which originated as a means to racially cleanse society of blacks. The left, to this day, idolizes Margret Sanger. So, you try the simplest of tactics; blame everything YOUR guys did on US guys.

    Guess what, Tom… it doesn’t work. Nobody has an exclusive on racism and Democrats certainly don’t have an exclusive on a history of opposing it. The fact that they (you) try to sluff it off on someone else in stead of admitting and apologizing for it belies the racism still living strong in the Democrat heart.

  34. 36

    Richard Wheeler

    Tom asked me to remind you fellas he’s been gone 10 months and doesn’t plan on returning anytime soon.
    To RT a better late–er very late–than never.

  35. 42

    Jaroslaw

    @Randy: I don’t agree with most of what Joccol said, but he did mention a number of “divide and conquer” issues. Same sex marriage for one. (note – it has been legal in Massachussetts for 12 years now and the sky hasn’t fallen – which just goes to show politicians don’t change their stripes. Most, not all, use whatever will get them elected. Which is why I don’t get too excited about which party is cleaner/”better”/more true to principals etc.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *