LOL So now its all "code". Where's my decoder ring?
Sorry, but your beloved Democrat Party will forever be associated with slavery, segregation, and the KKK. You can't change history.
LOL So now its all "code". Where's my decoder ring?
Sorry, but your beloved Democrat Party will forever be associated with slavery, segregation, and the KKK. You can't change history.
Re: Code
Oh, you got sarcasm,....OK. No problem.
My friend, when one of the very people who:
.
helped devise the code AND
used the code AND
THEN explained (OFF THE RECORD!) what the code means and how they used it AND
then apologized for using the code,
you don't need a decoder ring (or maybe YOU do), you just need common sense and an absence of blind party loyalty to see what was going on.
Now perhaps you were in the inner sanctum of the GOP - or at least sitting by the door - when the code was being developed and utilized. But somehow I doubt it.
So we can believe our lying eyes and ears OR we can take your word for it that there was no code (if that is what you are saying while hiding behind the sarcasm).
If your eyes didn't comprehend the printed text of what I posted, perhaps your ears will understand the audio:
Go to YouTube and search for: Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
NOTE in reference to my point about "admission against interest": Atwater can be heard to say,
"You're not going to quote me, are you?" (or words to that effect)
So,....In addition to the context and content themselves, this is a CLEAR indication that Atwater was revealing something he'd been keeping secret or quiet and/or did not want revealed..
He got his wish as the professor interviewing him honored that "request" and did not quote him by name while Atwater was living and only printed his name after Atwater apologized and died. That quote was in an obscure academic publication - NOT used for political purposes by the professor. Later it was "discovered."
The professor's widow only recently released the tape WHEN CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOU QUESTIONED THE VERACITY OF THE QUOTE and questioned the integrity of her husband - accusing him of making it up.
Wonder what they are saying now? Probably something about decoder rings, huh?
Oh, fuck yeah! Them teeth are sharp!
Welcome to the forum, Barracuda!
So was Robert Byrd, only a Democrat Senator.
Re: Code
Oh, you got sarcasm,....OK. No problem.
My friend, when one of the very people who:
.
helped devise the code AND
used the code AND
THEN explained (OFF THE RECORD!) what the code means and how they used it AND
then apologized for using the code,
you don't need a decoder ring (or maybe YOU do), you just need common sense and an absence of blind party loyalty to see what was going on.
Now perhaps you were in the inner sanctum of the GOP - or at least sitting by the door - when the code was being developed and utilized. But somehow I doubt it.
So we can believe our lying eyes and ears OR we can take your word for it that there was no code (if that is what you are saying while hiding behind the sarcasm).
If your eyes didn't comprehend the printed text of what I posted, perhaps your ears will understand the audio:
Go to YouTube and search for: Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
NOTE in reference to my point about "admission against interest": Atwater can be heard to say,
"You're not going to quote me, are you?" (or words to that effect)
So,....In addition to the context and content themselves, this is a CLEAR indication that Atwater was revealing something he'd been keeping secret or quiet and/or did not want revealed..
He got his wish as the professor interviewing him honored that "request" and did not quote him by name while Atwater was living and only printed his name after Atwater apologized and died. That quote was in an obscure academic publication - NOT used for political purposes by the professor. Later it was "discovered."
The professor's widow only recently released the tape WHEN CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOU QUESTIONED THE VERACITY OF THE QUOTE and questioned the integrity of her husband - accusing him of making it up.
Wonder what they are saying now? Probably something about decoder rings, huh?
The Dem party (not mine by the way; as I am a DINO) will forever be associated, to their shame, with all of that stuff, but a strange thing happened over several decades. Change happened.
Party labels are one thing, but ideology is another. It was States Rights, white so-called supremacist Conservative Dems who supported all of that horrendous anti-humanity ideology.
What many Conservatives, including Black ones, pretend not to know is that Conservative Dems and Conservative Repubs together opposed Civil Rights Laws, Voting Rights Acts, while it was moderate Dems and Repubs (with a few IMO "principled" Conservatives, like Dirksen) who supported Civil Rights legislation and federal efforts to end segregation, for example.
To use ONLY party labels in discussing these matters is simplistic, incomplete and usually driven by an agenda to obfuscate the dramatic shifts inside the two major parties.
Let us look beyond the Party labels at a specific example where Repubs like to claim that Repubs are responsible for Civil Rights. I'm new to this board, so forgive me if I repeat facts already "in evidence." Repubs correctly state that many Dems in Congress voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. True enough, but let us remember that in 1964 there were few Repubs in Congress from the South and it was the Solid South for the Dems. That Solid South was solidly Conservative, but not all of the Dem party was.
But what if I told you that a higher percentage (100%) of Southern Repubs in the Congress voted AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Southern Dems? OK, not by much, but still a higher %.
Here is a breakdown by Party AND REGION of the votes against the 1964 Civil Rights Act
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:
FOR AGAINST
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:
FOR AGAINST
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
wikipedia Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The chart above ALSO reveals that Northern Repubs voted FOR the Law at a LOWER PERCENTAGE than Northern Dems in the SENATE AND IN THE HOUSE.
And, yet, Repubs today beat their chests to say they are the Party which supported Civil Rights Laws in the 60's?????
One could argue that this was only one bill, but it is regarded as the benchmark civil rights law by the US Senate Judiciary Committee and considered a "landmark" by most others. It outlawed:
discrimination in hiring,
segregation in public accommodations,
racial segregation in public schools,
and it extended voting rights.
By percentage, DamnYankee, your beloved Repubs voted AGAINST these provisions at a higher rate than Dems - both South and North. Are you a RINO or a "rock rib" (I'm old school) Repub?
Were they at?
Gawd, you're a dumb hick.
), but it is no substitute for facts or logic when trying to determine the facts – in this case re: the Repub Southern Strategy and Repubs taking credit for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law.I love watching a finely-finessed bitchslap on a Sunday morning....
DamnYankee said:
Damn, DamnYankee!!
You are a hoot!!!
Ignoring for a moment that your post is a non-sequitor…….. Check!
First you dismiss rock solid, recorded, first person testimony (Atwater) with sarcasm then you dismiss data from Wiki without disputing it, even peremptorily, OR with any data. That's what people do, as is apparently your case, when they have NO factual comeback. Check!
.
But THEN……….you incorporate in your latest response a word-for-word “paragraph” apparently lifted FROM A DISCUSSION BOARD in 2005:'
http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/abo...sues/20969-democrats-party-racists-proof.html (Post #1, third paragraph)
(I guess you came across that barely tangential tidbit in after a long and futile search for information to contradict the info on Wiki…….) Check!
At least Wiki is open for correction when people have contrary information. (That opportunity is open to you, too.) Discussion boards.....not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I am not challenging the facts (it sounds about right) of that paragraph that starts with: "Republicans passed the Civil Rights act of 1875...". I am simply pointing out your inconsistency and the potential (being generous, perhaps) hypocrisy of dismissing something SOURCED from Wiki, which is open by design for correction and then quoting someone else’s unvetted words. But, to be fair, I give you credit for using your own words (apparently) in the remaining 3 sentences of your post. OR….could it be that glockmail IS you?? No problem quoting yourself, right?.
Meanwhile, I take it that you have not found any information to contradict the info at Wiki [Check!] just as you could not dispute the Atwater interview (first posted by Haiku and then by me to put it into further context.) Check!
Now....Yankee, I enjoy good sarcasm (use it myself
You say?
Finally, since you’ve quoted my entire post twice without substantially addressing ANYthing in it, let me quote a small part of it also:
Incidentally, I hope you don’t start reminding me of Guiliani: A noun, a verb and a 'Robert Byrd!'
