DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Your comment, Libbie?
The History of the Democrat Party
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
Southern Woman
Banned
Nobody can beat you in an argument, Sweetie!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The Radical Republicans that fought in gov't against slavery and fought FOR gov't protection of all it's citizens against the excesses of gov't DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE. And the Dixiecrats that were the majority of the Dem party DO NOT RUN THAT PARTY ANYMORE. Do your fucking homework, and STOP insisting your revisionist wants are a replacement for ALL the historical facts. Hell, your compadres have been pointing to the the GOP's glory days of the Radical Republicans for years...you should talk to them.Like I said before, how do you explain the last 30 years of the GOP? I'm still waiting for an answer.
Get it together, T&A...you're embarassing yourself.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/
Bottom line: Duke NEVER apologized or denounced his racist past. He ran and won his seat on a GOP ticket...that means republicans voted for him enough to win KNOWING OF HIS WHITE SUPREMACIST ADVOCATIONS.
Deal with it....or keep stubbornly repeating a moot point and ignoring what you don't like...or keep pushing your supposition and conjecture as fact. At this point, the Southern Man is just making an ass of himself.
See ya.
The last 30 years ???
Well, the Republicans held the Presidency for 20 of the last 30 years.....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
The last 30 years ???
Well, the Republicans held the Presidency for 20 of the last 30 years.....
No shit sherlock, they also produced a record of anti-civil rights, doing end runs around the Bill of Rights and the Contstitution, subverting the electoral process..you know, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I & II. But hey, keep denying it all and just call everyone pinheads....that's about your speed and substitute for a logical discussion.
You ought to stick with facts instead of opinions pulled from your rectum and accusations from the HuffingtonPost and the other far-left radical sites you frequent....
Learn on history....you can start here...
Civil Rights Act 1964
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[10]
* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Your dismissed....
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
OH, sissie's on a full misdirection roll tonight.
He just claimed that SB-1070 says that you have to carry your Birth Certificate, in case an Officer asks you for it as prrof.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Canceled.LTroll.10
Banned
It's unnatural for a Democrat to be in the White House, ain't it?
Maybe even "queer".
Maybe even "queer".
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Like I said before, how do you explain the last 30 years of the GOP? I'm still waiting for an answer.
Get it together, T&A...you're embarassing yourself.
No, the Radical Republicans simply adopted new wedge issues. BTW, they were always a minority in the party, otherwise you would have had more John Browns running around.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
YOU ought to stop trying to divert the conversation...I'm pointing to what transpired under Nixon, Reagan and the Bush Family. In typical dodgy fashion, you AVOID those examples to reach back further for a an item that YOU assume will absolve those mentioned by association.
As usual your ploy fails, because those of us who do not take things at face value just because they appeal to our viewpoint actually THOROUGHLY RESEARCH A TOPIC.
Here's why your myopic and revisionist viewpoint of history doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny. I was in touch last year with a guy that gave me this during a discussion of this very topic.
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/virginia-foxx-and-the-gop-civil-rights-champions-of-yore/
Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.
This period marks a historical turning point for both political parties. President Johnson and liberal Northern Democrats were ill prepared for the Southern white backlash that followed the passage of civil rights legislation. Of course, the legislation wasn't the only factor, but it was during this time that the Democratic Party set on a path to shedding its racist elements. In doing so, Democrats lost the political grip on the South it had held since the Great Depression.
The path chosen by the Republicans was altogether different. Interestingly, the GOP underwent a schism, not unlike the one presently in progress.
Republican conservatives, sympathetic to the racist backlash among Southern whites, made their first political inroads in the South around this time. The most significant evidence for this trend was the GOP's 1964 presidential nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
Before Goldwater's nomination, the GOP's regional strength was based in the American North-East. Their party leaders were inclined to support government investment in infrastructure. Having been decimated during their initial struggle against Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (which they decried as "socialist," sound familiar?) a moderate GOP persisted as a minority party, seeking to improve FDR's legislation rather than rail against it.
Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, but having won his home state and four other Southern states in the contest, the GOP's course was set. They abandoned their moderate positions
Now, do the usual false bravado you do so well by denying, repeating, and all the typical neocon insults you know so well...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're not even making sense! Going from a steadfast pro-civil rights and anti-big gov't to the opposite is NOT a "new wedge issue"...it's a complete change in social attitude and political philosophy.
Neocons have been pushing this revisionist BS for years....but the truth is out there....as I pointed out to Bravo. Observe and learn:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=655170&postcount=371
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And of course, you can cut & paste those EXACT words that I posted to verify your claim? Because I stated that it has become one of the new options that a cop can now request from a citizen based on his personal assessment of reasonable/probable cause. And if you don't have it when he asks, you get a trip to the precinct to "sort things out". Put up or shut up Freedumb.God Freedumb, you such a loser....you can't stand losing to me on any point, so you just lie and then pretend everything is a joke or try to insult/BS your way out of it when you're caught. Grow up.
Here's how I set Bravo straight, though like you, he's too stubborn to admit his error.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=655170&postcount=371
Last edited:
YOU ought to stop trying to divert the conversation...I'm pointing to what transpired under Nixon, Reagan and the Bush Family. In typical dodgy fashion, you AVOID those examples to reach back further for a an item that YOU assume will absolve those mentioned by association.
As usual your ploy fails, because those of us who do not take things at face value just because they appeal to our viewpoint actually THOROUGHLY RESEARCH A TOPIC.
Here's why your myopic and revisionist viewpoint of history doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny. I was in touch last year with a guy that gave me this during a discussion of this very topic.
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/virginia-foxx-and-the-gop-civil-rights-champions-of-yore/
Congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act did not break along party lines – they split along regional lines. In the North, both parties supported the Civil Rights Act; in the South, both parties opposed it. The difference was that the Republican Party had very little presence in the South, which had been dominated since the 1870s by the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party.
This period marks a historical turning point for both political parties. President Johnson and liberal Northern Democrats were ill prepared for the Southern white backlash that followed the passage of civil rights legislation. Of course, the legislation wasn't the only factor, but it was during this time that the Democratic Party set on a path to shedding its racist elements. In doing so, Democrats lost the political grip on the South it had held since the Great Depression.
The path chosen by the Republicans was altogether different. Interestingly, the GOP underwent a schism, not unlike the one presently in progress.
Republican conservatives, sympathetic to the racist backlash among Southern whites, made their first political inroads in the South around this time. The most significant evidence for this trend was the GOP's 1964 presidential nomination of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.
Before Goldwater's nomination, the GOP's regional strength was based in the American North-East. Their party leaders were inclined to support government investment in infrastructure. Having been decimated during their initial struggle against Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (which they decried as "socialist," sound familiar?) a moderate GOP persisted as a minority party, seeking to improve FDR's legislation rather than rail against it.
Goldwater lost to LBJ in 1964, but having won his home state and four other Southern states in the contest, the GOP's course was set. They abandoned their moderate positions
Now, do the usual false bravado you do so well by denying, repeating, and all the typical neocon insults you know so well...
I have nothing to deny...the votes and %'s of how the partys voted speaks for itself....your link to yet another far left website wasn't really necessary....
THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE AND CAN'T SPIN
I don't read far right sites and I sure as hell ain't gonna start responding to far left sites on their slanted and biased spin on an issue that is as plain as day in the voting records I posted....
You see, unlike you, I've already lived this history and I don't need something I've witnessed first hand to be explained to me...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
But again, Duke has no chance to get elected, while "sheets" Byrd would get re-elected for the umteenth time even if he were dead, apparently.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You're SO full of shit it almost defies description. But do continue to spin your fantastic tales steep in your admitted proud ignorance....you're doing EXACTLY as I said you would.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Most Republicans still profess to be anti-big government. What has changed is that, over time, the wedge issues they have crusaded over (originally slavery and polygamy) have shifted...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Libbie, aren't you proud of your party's history? 
Southern Woman
Banned
Libbie, admit that you are wrong and apologize to The Southern Man.
Getting schooled really pisses you off, doesn't it....:lol:
Its so funny to watch you rant, rile and rave.....I enjoy it every time.
I hope I don't act like that IF you ever get the upper hand of me in some exchange.....its not likely to happen, but then I'm not as perfect as you make me seem.....