# Dixiecrats Became Republicans??? A Lie.



## PoliticalChic

1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.




2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*

a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. 
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*

c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*


3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.

a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News




4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?

a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.




5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one. 
a. And they were *not conservative*.

b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.* 
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter

j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination

l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal

n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.

The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."

Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him. 


So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of

slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.


----------



## rightwinger

It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation

What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation

The south has been Republican ever since


----------



## NoNukes

Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in numberological order.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in numberological order.



1. How amusing that your ability only extend as far as Arabic numerals....

Tell me, nonoodles, when will you have completed your study of the alphabet?



2. Now to award you today's "Unintentional Humor" award:
You wrote:
"Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in* numberological *order."

Numberological????
Jaw-dropping ignorance....
...I shouldn't be surprised: I've seen your work before.

a. Your limited facility with the English language prevented you from understanding that *that word refers to 'numerology.*


For edification:
"Numerology is any study of the purported *divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding observed (or perceived) events.* It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. *Numerology and numerological divination* by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists."
Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 I know it is wrong to laugh at the lesser among us....but that was a hoot!

BTW....have you given up trying to spin straw into gold?



For future reference, ..now jot this down...*you meant  to say 'numerical.'*
You're welcome.


Ain't it great when *an attempted sneer turns right around and bites you in the butt???*


Keep up the good work!


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since



1. As the man said of the three holes in the ground, "Well, well, well."

2. How unusual is it to have wingy support my OP????
Wising up!!

3. Yes...the meme that is so prevalent among the uninformed that Republicans were the segregationists, or that Dixiecrats switched parties to become Republicans....all lies to cover the disgraceful past of the Democrat Party....slavery and segregation.


4. "What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, switched loyalties to new Republicans..."

Oh, no.....

You were doing so well....sorry that I have to send you to the penalty box on this one.

Segregationist voters were Democrats, remained Democrats to the end.
Why do you think the Democrat Senators in the OP continued to be re-elected???


But if you ask nicely I might post an OP stating the facts of the segregationist vote, and who they voted for.

Wanna guess? 
Right!!! Democrats.




But....there is hope for you!


----------



## Synthaholic

More PoliticalChic cut-n-paste nonsense.

Oh, goody!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> More PoliticalChic cut-n-paste nonsense.
> 
> Oh, goody!



1. Cut and paste refers to form.

2. Your analysis of the content is.....

....non-existent.


3. Same applies to your ability, seems.



Care to try to respond to any of it,....

...or stick to the Liberal's usual response: none.


C'mon, Sindy.....prove you're not anencephalic.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As the man said of the three holes in the ground, "Well, well, well."
> 
> 2. How unusual is it to have wingy support my OP????
> Wising up!!
> 
> 3. Yes...the meme that is so prevalent among the uninformed that Republicans were the segregationists, or that Dixiecrats switched parties to become Republicans....all lies to cover the disgraceful past of the Democrat Party....slavery and segregation.
> 
> 
> 4. "What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, switched loyalties to new Republicans..."
> 
> Oh, no.....
> 
> You were doing so well....sorry that I have to send you to the penalty box on this one.
> 
> Segregationist voters were Democrats, remained Democrats to the end.
> Why do you think the Democrat Senators in the OP continued to be re-elected???
> 
> 
> But if you ask nicely I might post an OP stating the facts of the segregationist vote, and who they voted for.
> 
> Wanna guess?
> Right!!! Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....there is hope for you!
Click to expand...


Sorry babe...no cut and paste to the rescue this time

After the civil rights bills passed in the mid 1960s, formerly Democratic voters abandoned their party in favor of Republicans who preached the evils of busing, affirmative action and equal rights. Many of the old Dixicrats hung in for a while but were replaced by Republicans who condemned Democrats for Civil Rights and pandered to southern racists


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As the man said of the three holes in the ground, "Well, well, well."
> 
> 2. How unusual is it to have wingy support my OP????
> Wising up!!
> 
> 3. Yes...the meme that is so prevalent among the uninformed that Republicans were the segregationists, or that Dixiecrats switched parties to become Republicans....all lies to cover the disgraceful past of the Democrat Party....slavery and segregation.
> 
> 
> 4. "What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, switched loyalties to new Republicans..."
> 
> Oh, no.....
> 
> You were doing so well....sorry that I have to send you to the penalty box on this one.
> 
> Segregationist voters were Democrats, remained Democrats to the end.
> Why do you think the Democrat Senators in the OP continued to be re-elected???
> 
> 
> But if you ask nicely I might post an OP stating the facts of the segregationist vote, and who they voted for.
> 
> Wanna guess?
> Right!!! Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....there is hope for you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry babe...no cut and paste to the rescue this time
> 
> After the civil rights bills passed in the mid 1960s, formerly Democratic voters abandoned their party in favor of Republicans who preached the evils of busing, affirmative action and equal rights. Many of the old Dixicrats hung in for a while but were replaced by Republicans who condemned Democrats for Civil Rights and pandered to southern racists
Click to expand...




I sure wish I could take that on just your say-so.....

...but your record of veracity is.....what to call it...less than 'unblemished.'


Now, I recognize that in your day and age, writing out a supported response on a slate-board was somewhat onerous.....

...but using that keyboard in front of you makes it far easier.


Now....don't be lazy.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?


Jesse Helms


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> More PoliticalChic cut-n-paste nonsense.
> 
> Oh, goody!



Oh, noooo......

I scared Sindy away!!!


All I did was suggest that he try to think of  a response to the OP!


I should have realized the burden I was putting on the poor Liberal.....




Now....come on out from under that desk, Sindy!!


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in numberological order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How amusing that your ability only extend as far as Arabic numerals....
> 
> Tell me, nonoodles, when will you have completed your study of the alphabet?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Now to award you today's "Unintentional Humor" award:
> You wrote:
> "Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in* numberological *order."
> 
> Numberological????
> Jaw-dropping ignorance....
> ...I shouldn't be surprised: I've seen your work before.
> 
> a. Your limited facility with the English language prevented you from understanding that *that word refers to 'numerology.*
> 
> 
> For edification:
> "Numerology is any study of the purported *divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding observed (or perceived) events.* It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. *Numerology and numerological divination* by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists."
> Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I know it is wrong to laugh at the lesser among us....but that was a hoot!
> 
> BTW....have you given up trying to spin straw into gold?
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, ..now jot this down...*you meant  to say 'numerical.'*
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> Ain't it great when *an attempted sneer turns right around and bites you in the butt???*
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work!
Click to expand...


It is almost painful to watch you attempting to be clever and failing so miserably. If you came off at all like a decent person, instead of wanting to be Anne Coulter, it would be painful. But now? We can just sit back and enjoy it.

Numberological was a poor attempt at humor. thought you might get it though. Instead you go on and on in your boring, boring, boring style.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in numberological order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How amusing that your ability only extend as far as Arabic numerals....
> 
> Tell me, nonoodles, when will you have completed your study of the alphabet?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Now to award you today's "Unintentional Humor" award:
> You wrote:
> "Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in* numberological *order."
> 
> Numberological????
> Jaw-dropping ignorance....
> ...I shouldn't be surprised: I've seen your work before.
> 
> a. Your limited facility with the English language prevented you from understanding that *that word refers to 'numerology.*
> 
> 
> For edification:
> "Numerology is any study of the purported *divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding observed (or perceived) events.* It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. *Numerology and numerological divination* by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists."
> Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I know it is wrong to laugh at the lesser among us....but that was a hoot!
> 
> BTW....have you given up trying to spin straw into gold?
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, ..now jot this down...*you meant  to say 'numerical.'*
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> Ain't it great when *an attempted sneer turns right around and bites you in the butt???*
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is almost painful to watch you attempting to be clever and failing so miserably. If you came off at all like a decent person, instead of wanting to be Anne Coulter, it would be painful. But now? We can just sit back and enjoy it.
Click to expand...


It sure isn't painful to observe the comic gold that you provide, nonoodles!!!!


I got such a kick out of you proving what a dunce you are......again.

Wasn't that great, you launching an attack against me....but using the incorrect word!!

Was that justice or what!!




And where is my 'thanks' for teaching you the correct word, huh????
Bet you think an innuendo is an Italian suppository
so stupid, if the teacher told you to do an essay youd have sex with a Mexican.

I haven't had this much fun since the 2010 midterm elections!

OK, ok...I know...a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a liberal the English language....



And thank you so very much for mentioning me in the same sentence with the magnificent Queen Ann!!!
Made my day!


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How amusing that your ability only extend as far as Arabic numerals....
> 
> Tell me, nonoodles, when will you have completed your study of the alphabet?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Now to award you today's "Unintentional Humor" award:
> You wrote:
> "Rightwinger, you forgot to put your reply in* numberological *order."
> 
> Numberological????
> Jaw-dropping ignorance....
> ...I shouldn't be surprised: I've seen your work before.
> 
> a. Your limited facility with the English language prevented you from understanding that *that word refers to 'numerology.*
> 
> 
> For edification:
> "Numerology is any study of the purported *divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding observed (or perceived) events.* It has many systems and traditions and beliefs. *Numerology and numerological divination* by systems such as isopsephy were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics or pseudoscience by modern scientists."
> Numerology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I know it is wrong to laugh at the lesser among us....but that was a hoot!
> 
> BTW....have you given up trying to spin straw into gold?
> 
> 
> 
> For future reference, ..now jot this down...*you meant  to say 'numerical.'*
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
> Ain't it great when *an attempted sneer turns right around and bites you in the butt???*
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is almost painful to watch you attempting to be clever and failing so miserably. If you came off at all like a decent person, instead of wanting to be Anne Coulter, it would be painful. But now? We can just sit back and enjoy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure isn't painful to observe the comic gold that you provide, nonoodles!!!!
> 
> 
> I got such a kick out of you proving what a dunce you are......again.
> 
> Wasn't that great, you launching an attack against me....but using the incorrect word!!
> 
> Was that justice or what!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is my 'thanks' for teaching you the correct word, huh????
> Bet you think an innuendo is an Italian suppository
> so stupid, if the teacher told you to do an essay youd have sex with a Mexican.
> 
> I haven't had this much fun since the 2010 midterm elections!
> 
> OK, ok...I know...a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a liberal the English language....
> 
> 
> 
> *And thank you so very much for mentioning me in the same sentence with the magnificent Queen Ann!!!*
> Made my day!
Click to expand...


You are really pathetic. Not even enough of a person to want to be yourself. And if it was not for me, no one would be replying to you on your boring thread.

Perhaps you should drop a few bucks and invest in a joke book, I hear they are useful for the terminally boring.


----------



## Bfgrn

I'm sure PC just forgot...

The Conservative Coalition

The Conservative Coalition was a coalition in the U.S. Congress that brought together the majority of the Northern Republicans and a conservative, mostly Southern minority of the Democrats. The coalition usually defeated the liberals of the New Deal Coalition; the Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. It continued as a potent force until the 1990s when most of the conservative southern Democrats were replaced by southern Republicans. The coalition no longer exists.

In its heyday, its most important Republican leader until his death in 1963 was Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio; Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen was the key Republican in the 1960s. The chief Democrats were Senator Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and Congressmen Howard W. Smith of Virginia and Carl Vinson of Georgia. Dirksen and the Republicans broke with Southern Democrats and provided the bipartisan votes necessary to insure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bfgrn said:


> I'm sure PC just forgot...
> 
> The Conservative Coalition
> 
> The Conservative Coalition was a coalition in the U.S. Congress that brought together the majority of the Northern Republicans and a conservative, mostly Southern minority of the Democrats. The coalition usually defeated the liberals of the New Deal Coalition; the Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. It continued as a potent force until the 1990s when most of the conservative southern Democrats were replaced by southern Republicans. The coalition no longer exists.
> 
> In its heyday, its most important Republican leader until his death in 1963 was Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio; Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen was the key Republican in the 1960s. The chief Democrats were Senator Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and Congressmen Howard W. Smith of Virginia and Carl Vinson of Georgia. Dirksen and the Republicans broke with Southern Democrats and provided the bipartisan votes necessary to insure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



And the point you are responding to, and/or making is.......?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is almost painful to watch you attempting to be clever and failing so miserably. If you came off at all like a decent person, instead of wanting to be Anne Coulter, it would be painful. But now? We can just sit back and enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure isn't painful to observe the comic gold that you provide, nonoodles!!!!
> 
> 
> I got such a kick out of you proving what a dunce you are......again.
> 
> Wasn't that great, you launching an attack against me....but using the incorrect word!!
> 
> Was that justice or what!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is my 'thanks' for teaching you the correct word, huh????
> Bet you think an innuendo is an Italian suppository
> so stupid, if the teacher told you to do an essay youd have sex with a Mexican.
> 
> I haven't had this much fun since the 2010 midterm elections!
> 
> OK, ok...I know...a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a liberal the English language....
> 
> 
> 
> *And thank you so very much for mentioning me in the same sentence with the magnificent Queen Ann!!!*
> Made my day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really pathetic. Not even enough of a person to want to be yourself. And if it was not for me, no one would be replying to you on your boring thread.
> 
> Perhaps you should drop a few bucks and invest in a joke book, I hear they are useful for the terminally boring.
Click to expand...




For clarity....are you claiming you don't realize what a fool you've been made to appear....

...or that it happens so often that you no longer care?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is almost painful to watch you attempting to be clever and failing so miserably. If you came off at all like a decent person, instead of wanting to be Anne Coulter, it would be painful. But now? We can just sit back and enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure isn't painful to observe the comic gold that you provide, nonoodles!!!!
> 
> 
> I got such a kick out of you proving what a dunce you are......again.
> 
> Wasn't that great, you launching an attack against me....but using the incorrect word!!
> 
> Was that justice or what!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is my 'thanks' for teaching you the correct word, huh????
> Bet you think an innuendo is an Italian suppository&#8230;
> &#8230;so stupid, if the teacher told you to do an essay you&#8217;d have sex with a Mexican.
> 
> I haven't had this much fun since the 2010 midterm elections!
> 
> OK, ok...I know...a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a liberal the English language....
> 
> 
> 
> *And thank you so very much for mentioning me in the same sentence with the magnificent Queen Ann!!!*
> Made my day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are really pathetic. Not even enough of a person to want to be yourself. And if it was not for me, no one would be replying to you on your boring thread.
> 
> Perhaps you should drop a few bucks and invest in a joke book, I hear they are useful for the terminally boring.
Click to expand...


*"You are really pathetic."*

nonoodles.......bet you don't realize how much you sound like this?







I bet you thought I&#8217;d run out of ways to humiliate you.


----------



## expatriate

Fact:  in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman.

and the Dixiecrat he was talking about had, in fact, switched parties and was also a republican senator at the time those indelicate, but oh, so revealing sentiments were expressed.

Fact.


----------



## midcan5

Why is Joseph McCarthy so important to republicans?  There are constant apologies for a man who from everything I have read was a drunk and a liar. His list of communists was a fraud, same as that tea party buffoon from Florida, Alan West. Is retardation an inheritable trait among republicans? Do they take republicans, like PC, into a room and brainwash them with McCarthy as saint images? Weirdest historical nonsense, and it must soothe the likes of a Coulter to rehash a buffoon. The communists in real communist countries have even given up on their glorification of losers, time PC and Coulter found something relevant to today. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel addressing JM. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/217704-alan--heard-80-dems-are-communists-6.html#post5130623


----------



## JakeStarkey

Moron.  Go dig up Strom Thurmond and ask him about his and his guys' change to the GOP. Moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> Fact:  in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman.
> 
> and the Dixiecrat he was talking about had, in fact, switched parties and was also a republican senator at the time those indelicate, but oh, so revealing sentiments were expressed.
> 
> Fact.



1. Fact: you are a dunce, otherwise described as a reliable Democrat voter

2. Fact: you haven't a clue as to the context. Probably don't know what context means.

3. The occasion was the 100th birthday party of Strom Thrumond, being toasted by Trent Lott.
He was being kind to an old man.

4. Fact: Thurmond had run on the Dixiecrat ticket, a Democrat....54 years prior.

5. Fact: when he lost in 1948, he went right back to being a Democrat. He became a Republican 16 years afterwards.

6. Fact: Lott was also a Democrat until 1972.
So one former Democrat was being cordial to another former Democrat

7. Fact:Bill Clinton gave the Medal of Freedom award to a lifelong segregationist, Democrat Wm. J. Fulbright. And another life-long segregationist, Democrat Albert Gore, Sr. was in attendance.

8. Fact: Democrat Robert Byrd was a kleagle in the KKK. Democrats made Byrd sec'y of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader.

9. Fact: When Byrd died in 2010, Democrat Bill Clinton eulogized him in "The Hill"

10. Fact: you're still a dunce.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As the man said of the three holes in the ground, "Well, well, well."
> 
> 2. How unusual is it to have wingy support my OP????
> Wising up!!
> 
> 3. Yes...the meme that is so prevalent among the uninformed that Republicans were the segregationists, or that Dixiecrats switched parties to become Republicans....all lies to cover the disgraceful past of the Democrat Party....slavery and segregation.
> 
> 
> 4. "What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, switched loyalties to new Republicans..."
> 
> Oh, no.....
> 
> You were doing so well....sorry that I have to send you to the penalty box on this one.
> 
> Segregationist voters were Democrats, remained Democrats to the end.
> Why do you think the Democrat Senators in the OP continued to be re-elected???
> 
> 
> But if you ask nicely I might post an OP stating the facts of the segregationist vote, and who they voted for.
> 
> Wanna guess?
> Right!!! Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....there is hope for you!
Click to expand...


*LMAO. She sent you to the penalty box mid post.*


----------



## rdean

For a right winger to insist it's the Republican Party that's for racial equality is pathetic.  You only have to read the endless "why white people are better than black people" threads and who starts them to know the truth.

Don't start a thread that is so obviously laughable.

Remember, when Rick Santorum told an auditorium of Republicans the Republican Party has no smart people, they "CHEERED".  They cheered being called stupid.  We aren't ALL Republicans.


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> Why is Joseph McCarthy so important to republicans?  There are constant apologies for a man who from everything I have read was a drunk and a liar. His list of communists was a fraud, same as that tea party buffoon from Florida, Alan West. Is retardation an inheritable trait among republicans? Do they take republicans, like PC, into a room and brainwash them with McCarthy as saint images? Weirdest historical nonsense, and it must soothe the likes of a Coulter to rehash a buffoon. The communists in real communist countries have even given up on their glorification of losers, time PC and Coulter found something relevant to today. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel addressing JM.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/217704-alan--heard-80-dems-are-communists-6.html#post5130623



Oooo! Ooo! Call on me!!!


'Cause the hero, Senator Joseph McCarthy stood up for America in the face of interminable attacks....

1. McCarthys primary goal was not to expose individual Communists, *he was simply demanding of the liberal establishment: Why were they sheltering traitors? * It was the exact same point Eisenhower was making when he directed Attorney General Brownell to inform the public that President Truman had wittingly place a Soviet spy in a key position at the IMF For decades, *people who should not have been allowed anywhere a government job were strolling into sensitive positions with the US government.* For the most part, accusations were not aimed at sending the accused to a gulag, only to private practice.

2. A host of other right-wing Republicans had sought to dramatize the communism issue, but only McCarthy succeeded. And *McCarthy succeeded while the others did not in part because of his thoroughgoing contempt for the rules of political controversy.  *
Michael Paul Rogin, The Intellectuals and McCarthy: The Radical Specter, p. 251


*He forced liberals to explain themselves in full view of the American people. So they made McCarthy the issue.*

3. The question wasnt simply whether people like William Remington were *agents of Stalin. *He was [War Production Board; Office of Emergency Management, convicted for perjury, killed in prison] (see listing of Soviet agents List of Soviet agents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)  
The question was whether he should be working for the government.  

4.* Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists *and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice.  Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to *handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case *would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11. 


5. "...from everything I have read..."
Pu-leezze!
You and I both know what you read: communist propaganda from 'Sojurners.'


6. Have you read 'The Venona Papers," Haynes and Klehr?

I have.

7. Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin

I have.

8. Have you read "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin

I have


9. Yet you, a brainwashed simpleton have the nerve to throw around the word 'retardation.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

rdean said:


> For a right winger to insist it's the Republican Party that's for racial equality is pathetic.  You only have to read the endless "why white people are better than black people" threads and who starts them to know the truth.
> 
> Don't start a thread that is so obviously laughable.
> 
> Remember, when Rick Santorum told an auditorium of Republicans the Republican Party has no smart people, they "CHEERED".  They cheered being called stupid.  We aren't ALL Republicans.



Double-dog dare ya' to comment on this:

 "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House.* Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3]* None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News


Know what lynching is?
For it or against it, scissor-boy?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman.
> 
> and the Dixiecrat he was talking about had, in fact, switched parties and was also a republican senator at the time those indelicate, but oh, so revealing sentiments were expressed.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Fact: you are a dunce, otherwise described as a reliable Democrat voter
> 
> 2. Fact: you haven't a clue as to the context. Probably don't know what context means.
> 
> 3. The occasion was the 100th birthday party of Strom Thrumond, being toasted by Trent Lott.
> He was being kind to an old man.
> 
> 4. Fact: Thurmond had run on the Dixiecrat ticket, a Democrat....54 years prior.
> 
> 5. Fact: when he lost in 1948, he went right back to being a Democrat. He became a Republican 16 years afterwards.
> 
> 6. Fact: Lott was also a Democrat until 1972.
> So one former Democrat was being cordial to another former Democrat
> 
> 7. Fact:Bill Clinton gave the Medal of Freedom award to a lifelong segregationist, Democrat Wm. J. Fulbright. And another life-long segregationist, Democrat Albert Gore, Sr. was in attendance.
> 
> 8. Fact: Democrat Robert Byrd was a kleagle in the KKK. Democrats made Byrd sec'y of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader.
> 
> 9. Fact: When Byrd died in 2010, Democrat Bill Clinton eulogized him in "The Hill"
> 
> 10. Fact: you're still a dunce.
Click to expand...


That's just a pithy and charming way to end a glorious post.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure isn't painful to observe the comic gold that you provide, nonoodles!!!!
> 
> 
> I got such a kick out of you proving what a dunce you are......again.
> 
> Wasn't that great, you launching an attack against me....but using the incorrect word!!
> 
> Was that justice or what!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is my 'thanks' for teaching you the correct word, huh????
> Bet you think an innuendo is an Italian suppository&#8230;
> &#8230;so stupid, if the teacher told you to do an essay you&#8217;d have sex with a Mexican.
> 
> I haven't had this much fun since the 2010 midterm elections!
> 
> OK, ok...I know...a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to teach a liberal the English language....
> 
> 
> 
> *And thank you so very much for mentioning me in the same sentence with the magnificent Queen Ann!!!*
> Made my day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really pathetic. Not even enough of a person to want to be yourself. And if it was not for me, no one would be replying to you on your boring thread.
> 
> Perhaps you should drop a few bucks and invest in a joke book, I hear they are useful for the terminally boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You are really pathetic."*
> 
> nonoodles.......bet you don't realize how much you sound like this?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU&feature=related]That's Despicable - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you thought I&#8217;d run out of ways to humiliate you.
Click to expand...


A pathetic Anne Coulter wannabe only humiliates herself. Ann Coulter is a political hack who makes a living writing outrageous bullshit that plays on the hatred of the likes of you. And you swallow it and wallow in it.


----------



## rightwinger

midcan5 said:


> Why is Joseph McCarthy so important to republicans?  There are constant apologies for a man who from everything I have read was a drunk and a liar. His list of communists was a fraud, same as that tea party buffoon from Florida, Alan West. Is retardation an inheritable trait among republicans? Do they take republicans, like PC, into a room and brainwash them with McCarthy as saint images? Weirdest historical nonsense, and it must soothe the likes of a Coulter to rehash a buffoon. The communists in real communist countries have even given up on their glorification of losers, time PC and Coulter found something relevant to today. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel addressing JM.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/217704-alan--heard-80-dems-are-communists-6.html#post5130623



In the world that they inhabit........ McCarthy, Harding and Bush are heroes while FDR and Wilson are traitors. JFK has morphed into a Conservative and the founding fathers have Republican values


----------



## JakeStarkey

When the McCarthy and the Dixiecrat stuff here, I send it over to a friend at the U, who passes it out to the history and government and sociology profs.  They giggle, then use it for logical fallacies by the Extreme Right in American culture.  They also do it for the Far Left as well in class.  It is nice to know that some of these people, Far Left and Far Right, have some justification for the resources the consume.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> When the McCarthy and the Dixiecrat stuff here, I send it over to a friend at the U, who passes it out to the history and government and sociology profs.  They giggle, then use it for logical fallacies by the Extreme Right in American culture.  They also do it for the Far Left as well in class.  It is nice to know that some of these people, Far Left and Far Right, have some justification for the resources the consume.




Who you kiddin'....


....you have no friends.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> When the McCarthy and the Dixiecrat stuff here, I send it over to a friend at the U, who passes it out to the history and government and sociology profs.  They giggle, then use it for logical fallacies by the Extreme Right in American culture.  They also do it for the Far Left as well in class.  It is nice to know that some of these people, Far Left and Far Right, have some justification for the resources the consume.



Hey Jake, can you identify this far left in Congress?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Says the girl with Simpson tatoo.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I can.  Can you?



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the McCarthy and the Dixiecrat stuff here, I send it over to a friend at the U, who passes it out to the history and government and sociology profs.  They giggle, then use it for logical fallacies by the Extreme Right in American culture.  They also do it for the Far Left as well in class.  It is nice to know that some of these people, Far Left and Far Right, have some justification for the resources the consume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Jake, can you identify this far left in Congress?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> I can.  Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the McCarthy and the Dixiecrat stuff here, I send it over to a friend at the U, who passes it out to the history and government and sociology profs.  They giggle, then use it for logical fallacies by the Extreme Right in American culture.  They also do it for the Far Left as well in class.  It is nice to know that some of these people, Far Left and Far Right, have some justification for the resources the consume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Jake, can you identify this far left in Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Then do it Jake. End your constant use of obfuscation. Who are they, what policies have they been able to get through Congress?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unimportant to this debate is why. What is important to know is that it is weak and very cowardly.

The greater danger, at the moment, is the far right.  Cowardly but more active.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are really pathetic. Not even enough of a person to want to be yourself. And if it was not for me, no one would be replying to you on your boring thread.
> 
> Perhaps you should drop a few bucks and invest in a joke book, I hear they are useful for the terminally boring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You are really pathetic."*
> 
> nonoodles.......bet you don't realize how much you sound like this?
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU&feature=related]That's Despicable - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pathetic Anne Coulter wannabe only humiliates herself. Ann Coulter is a political hack who makes a living writing outrageous bullshit that plays on the hatred of the likes of you. And you swallow it and wallow in it.
Click to expand...



"...on the hatred..."
Now, nonoodles....look each of our posts....you're the angry one...I've been laughing at  you all day.


"A pathetic Anne Coulter..."
So....which of her best-sellers have you read?


You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......

.....could you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Joseph McCarthy so important to republicans?  There are constant apologies for a man who from everything I have read was a drunk and a liar. His list of communists was a fraud, same as that tea party buffoon from Florida, Alan West. Is retardation an inheritable trait among republicans? Do they take republicans, like PC, into a room and brainwash them with McCarthy as saint images? Weirdest historical nonsense, and it must soothe the likes of a Coulter to rehash a buffoon. The communists in real communist countries have even given up on their glorification of losers, time PC and Coulter found something relevant to today. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel addressing JM.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/217704-alan--heard-80-dems-are-communists-6.html#post5130623
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the world that they inhabit........ McCarthy, Harding and Bush are heroes while FDR and Wilson are traitors. JFK has morphed into a Conservative and the founding fathers have Republican values
Click to expand...


wingy.....I wrote this to you earlier:

"I sure wish I could take that on just your say-so.....

...but your record of veracity is.....what to call it...less than 'unblemished.'


Now, I recognize that in your day and age, writing out a supported response on a slate-board was somewhat onerous.....

...but using that keyboard in front of you makes it far easier.


Now....don't be lazy."




Get those B12 shots, and put a little effort in here!!!


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Joseph McCarthy so important to republicans?  There are constant apologies for a man who from everything I have read was a drunk and a liar. His list of communists was a fraud, same as that tea party buffoon from Florida, Alan West. Is retardation an inheritable trait among republicans? Do they take republicans, like PC, into a room and brainwash them with McCarthy as saint images? Weirdest historical nonsense, and it must soothe the likes of a Coulter to rehash a buffoon. The communists in real communist countries have even given up on their glorification of losers, time PC and Coulter found something relevant to today. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel addressing JM.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/217704-alan--heard-80-dems-are-communists-6.html#post5130623
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the world that they inhabit........ McCarthy, Harding and Bush are heroes while FDR and Wilson are traitors. JFK has morphed into a Conservative and the founding fathers have Republican values
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wingy.....I wrote this to you earlier:
> 
> "I sure wish I could take that on just your say-so.....
> 
> ...but your record of veracity is.....what to call it...less than 'unblemished.'
> 
> 
> Now, I recognize that in your day and age, writing out a supported response on a slate-board was somewhat onerous.....
> 
> ...but using that keyboard in front of you makes it far easier.
> 
> 
> Now....don't be lazy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get those B12 shots, and put a little effort in here!!!
Click to expand...



Coming from the cut and paste princess?


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> Unimportant to this debate is why. What is important to know is that it is weak and very cowardly.
> 
> The greater danger, at the moment, is the far right.  Cowardly but more active.



I didn't ask why, I asked who and what.

But I do have one 'why' question...

If the greatest danger at the moment, is the far right, WHY do you support a candidate who will take this country farther to the right Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't care what you ask, bfgrn, when it does not apply to the discussion.

You may be the less intelligent twin of bigrebnc, but that gets you no more pass than he.

You are an absolute fool if you think Romney is a Tea Party member or that he won't hit metaphorically Ryan and Cantor in the face once he has power, kick them when they are down, and stomp them.

Romney will reach to the center once he has the presidency and build a center right to center left coalition, excluding far lefities and far righties.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the world that they inhabit........ McCarthy, Harding and Bush are heroes while FDR and Wilson are traitors. JFK has morphed into a Conservative and the founding fathers have Republican values
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wingy.....I wrote this to you earlier:
> 
> "I sure wish I could take that on just your say-so.....
> 
> ...but your record of veracity is.....what to call it...less than 'unblemished.'
> 
> 
> Now, I recognize that in your day and age, writing out a supported response on a slate-board was somewhat onerous.....
> 
> ...but using that keyboard in front of you makes it far easier.
> 
> 
> Now....don't be lazy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get those B12 shots, and put a little effort in here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from the cut and paste princess?
Click to expand...


Nothing????


Ya' throwing in the towel???



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQveng3Wxz8]Say it ain&#39;t so Joe - 8 Men Out - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have not offered anything yet of worth, Columbia Cathy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not offered anything yet of worth, Columbia Cathy.



Just facts, eh?


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't care what you ask, bfgrn, when it does not apply to the discussion.
> 
> You may be the less intelligent twin of bigrebnc, but that gets you no more pass than he.
> 
> You are an absolute fool if you think Romney is a Tea Party member or that he won't hit metaphorically Ryan and Cantor in the face once he has power, kick them when they are down, and stomp them.
> 
> Romney will reach to the center once he has the presidency and build a center right to center left coalition, excluding far lefities and far righties.



Men often make up in wrath what they lack in reason.
W. R. Alger

So, that is what you think of me Jake? Maybe you can ask a mod if you can take back the pos reps you used to send me.

Your delusions of Romney have no basis in any of the proposals he has put forward. So what you are saying is Romney is pretending to be to the right of Bush, until he gets elected...THEN we will see the REAL Romney...


----------



## JakeStarkey

No wrath just straight out point another's lack of ability and content.  I pos rep everybody at one time or another, from far lefty to far righty.  That includes bigrebnc as a matter of fact, once.

So if I rep you when ur right, I can neg rep you when ur are being deliberately ignorant.


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman.
> 
> and the Dixiecrat he was talking about had, in fact, switched parties and was also a republican senator at the time those indelicate, but oh, so revealing sentiments were expressed.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The occasion was the 100th birthday party of Strom Thrumond, being toasted by Trent Lott..
> 
> 6. Fact: Lott was also a Democrat until 1972.
> So one former Democrat was being cordial to another former Democrat
Click to expand...



Regarding your #3.

Oh... so when Trent Lott said we would be a better country today if we had elected a racist as president in 1948, he really didn't mean that we would be a better country today if we had elected a racist as president in 1948.  Those words were magical code words that didn't mean what they sounded like they meant... they somehow only meant, "Happy Birthday, Strom".  ROFLMFAO.

regarding your #6.

that was the point that your thread was attempting to debunk all along, wasn't it?  Racist democrats and dixiecrats DID become republicans... and fellow republicans rewarded them by making them their leaders, and by throwing lavish parties in their honor.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:  in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman.
> 
> and the Dixiecrat he was talking about had, in fact, switched parties and was also a republican senator at the time those indelicate, but oh, so revealing sentiments were expressed.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The occasion was the 100th birthday party of Strom Thrumond, being toasted by Trent Lott..
> 
> 6. Fact: Lott was also a Democrat until 1972.
> So one former Democrat was being cordial to another former Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your #3.
> 
> Oh... so when Trent Lott said we would be a better country today if we had elected a racist as president in 1948, he really didn't mean that we would be a better country today if we had elected a racist as president in 1948.  Those words were magical code words that didn't mean what they sounded like they meant... they somehow only meant, "Happy Birthday, Strom".  ROFLMFAO.
> 
> regarding your #6.
> 
> that was the point that your thread was attempting to debunk all along, wasn't it?  Racist democrats and dixiecrats DID become republicans... and fellow republicans rewarded them by making them their leaders, and by throwing lavish parties in their honor.
Click to expand...


You are the typical clueless 'reliable Democrat voter.'


The Dixiecrats Remained Democrats
The so-called *Dixiecrats remained Democrats* and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, *they continued to be Democrats *for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association



Democrats supported and maintained segregation for 100 years. They had a military wing called the KKK.....

Democrat McGovern:  And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace.  Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stand up and speak out for all of those [racist Democrats] who see you as their champion. ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN

....and you're still a dunce.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

PoliticalChic said:


> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a &#8220;Dixiecrat,&#8221; not &#8220;Dixiecan.&#8221; *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*



Strom Thurmond actually became a Republican you frickin' idiot.

The last segregationist to make a serious bid for governor of a state was named David Duke - a Republican.


And the only party with members of Congress who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act starts with an "R"


----------



## PoliticalChic

OohPooPahDoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond actually became a Republican you frickin' idiot.
> 
> The last segregationist to make a serious bid for governor of a state was named David Duke - a Republican.
> 
> 
> And the only party with members of Congress who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act starts with an "R"
Click to expand...


From the OP:
"5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one. 
a. And they were not conservative.

b.	*Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. *
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative."


Speaks to your ability, reading and comprehension, doesn't it?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

PoliticalChic said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond actually became a Republican you frickin' idiot.
> 
> The last segregationist to make a serious bid for governor of a state was named David Duke - a Republican.
> 
> 
> And the only party with members of Congress who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act starts with an "R"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> "5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were not conservative.
> 
> b.	*Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. *
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative."
> 
> 
> Speaks to your ability, reading and comprehension, doesn't it?
Click to expand...




I can comprehend fine, I just don't get your point. Are you saying I shouldn't vote for Robert Byrd? OK, I don't live in his state - no problemo.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"You are really pathetic."*
> 
> nonoodles.......bet you don't realize how much you sound like this?
> 
> 
> 
> That's
> 
> 
> I bet you thought Id run out of ways to humiliate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A pathetic Anne Coulter wannabe only humiliates herself. Ann Coulter is a political hack who makes a living writing outrageous bullshit that plays on the hatred of the likes of you. And you swallow it and wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...on the hatred..."
> Now, nonoodles....look each of our posts....you're the angry one...I've been laughing at  you all day.
> 
> 
> "A pathetic Anne Coulter..."
> So....which of her best-sellers have you read?
> 
> 
> You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......
> 
> .....could you?
Click to expand...



If you were laughing all day you must have finally gotten the humor in my original statement. I did not think that it was that funny though, but it is good to see that you can laugh at yourself.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> No wrath just straight out point another's lack of ability and content.  I pos rep everybody at one time or another, from far lefty to far righty.  That includes bigrebnc as a matter of fact, once.
> 
> So if I rep you when ur right, I can neg rep you when ur are being deliberately ignorant.


 
Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.

"It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."

The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does. 

So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.


----------



## midcan5

Read the history sometime. PC reads only Coulter, a paid talking head who contributes the same BS as McCarthy once did. Sad human beings who bring nothing to the table, nor do anything more than point fingers.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_(lawyer)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5GlFba5Yg]Welch versus Joseph McCarthy 1-2 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTwDUpbQHJg]Welch versus Joseph McCarthy 2-2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

OohPooPahDoo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond actually became a Republican you frickin' idiot.
> 
> The last segregationist to make a serious bid for governor of a state was named David Duke - a Republican.
> 
> 
> And the only party with members of Congress who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act starts with an "R"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the OP:
> "5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were not conservative.
> 
> b.	*Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. *
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative."
> 
> 
> Speaks to your ability, reading and comprehension, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can comprehend fine, I just don't get your point. Are you saying I shouldn't vote for Robert Byrd? OK, I don't live in his state - no problemo.
Click to expand...



"I can comprehend fine,..."


No, you can't.


This is why you don't get to mark your own paper. You screamed an imprecation about me not knowing that he became a Republican....

....yet my statement of just that was three items down from the one you quoted.


And now you pretend that that isn't the basis of the above post.
The honorable thing would have been to admit that you made a mistake.


You know what 'honorable' means, don't you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> Read the history sometime. PC reads only Coulter, a paid talking head who contributes the same BS as McCarthy once did. Sad human beings who bring nothing to the table, nor do anything more than point fingers.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fisher_(lawyer)
> 
> Welch versus Joseph McCarthy 1-2 - YouTube
> 
> Welch versus Joseph McCarthy 2-2 - YouTube



6. Have you read 'The Venona Papers," Haynes and Klehr?

I have.

7. Have you read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin

I have.

8. Have you read "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" by Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek and Jean-Louis Margolin

I have


From an earlier post.....missed it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pathetic Anne Coulter wannabe only humiliates herself. Ann Coulter is a political hack who makes a living writing outrageous bullshit that plays on the hatred of the likes of you. And you swallow it and wallow in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...on the hatred..."
> Now, nonoodles....look each of our posts....you're the angry one...I've been laughing at  you all day.
> 
> 
> "A pathetic Anne Coulter..."
> So....which of her best-sellers have you read?
> 
> 
> You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......
> 
> .....could you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were laughing all day you must have finally gotten the humor in my original statement. I did not think that it was that funny though, but it is good to see that you can laugh at yourself.
Click to expand...


So....which of her best-sellers have you read?


You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......

.....could you?


----------



## midcan5

PC, witch hunts are witch hunts. You live in so dense a bubble you forget the history of the time. You also fail to recognize being a communist then in America is kinda like being a right winger today. I'll let you see if you can figure out why. A bit of the history is below and the Verona papers are hardly a source of accurate info. You have to place your bed on the floor, that way the bogeyman will have no place to hide. Drop this odd worship of Coulter, she's a paid paranoid nutcase. I hoping she gets married and has ten kids, but so cranky a person may never really live life. Cheer up, life will be the same when we are all dust.   

https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/venona3.html

Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?

From first link: "The messages [deleted] furnishes the Bureau are, for the most part, very fragmentary and full of gaps. Some parts of the messages can never be recovered again because during the actual intercept the complete message was not obtained. Other portions can be recovered only through the skill of the cryptographers and with the Bureau's assistance. Frequently, through an examination of the messages and from a review of Bureau files, the Bureau can offer suspects for individuals involved.
Belmont was frank with his colleagues:

It must be realized that the [deleted] cryptographers make certain assumptions as to meanings when deciphering these messages and thereafter the proper translations of Russian idioms can become a problem. It is for such reasons that [deleted] has indicated that almost anything included in a translation of one of these deciphered messages may in the future be radically revised."


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are entitled to be silly.

Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wrath just straight out point another's lack of ability and content.  I pos rep everybody at one time or another, from far lefty to far righty.  That includes bigrebnc as a matter of fact, once.
> 
> So if I rep you when ur right, I can neg rep you when ur are being deliberately ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.
> 
> "It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."
> 
> The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.
> 
> So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC is reading libertarian trash and pretending that it is all quality.

That is a trash position itself.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> You are entitled to be silly.
> 
> Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wrath just straight out point another's lack of ability and content.  I pos rep everybody at one time or another, from far lefty to far righty.  That includes bigrebnc as a matter of fact, once.
> 
> So if I rep you when ur right, I can neg rep you when ur are being deliberately ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.
> 
> "It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."
> 
> The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.
> 
> So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"

Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?

Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> PC, witch hunts are witch hunts. You live in so dense a bubble you forget the history of the time. You also fail to recognize being a communist then in America is kinda like being a right winger today. I'll let you see if you can figure out why. A bit of the history is below and the Verona papers are hardly a source of accurate info. You have to place your bed on the floor, that way the bogeyman will have no place to hide. Drop this odd worship of Coulter, she's a paid paranoid nutcase. I hoping she gets married and has ten kids, but so cranky a person may never really live life. Cheer up, life will be the same when we are all dust.
> 
> https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/venona3.html
> 
> Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?
> 
> From first link: "The messages [deleted] furnishes the Bureau are, for the most part, very fragmentary and full of gaps. Some parts of the messages can never be recovered again because during the actual intercept the complete message was not obtained. Other portions can be recovered only through the skill of the cryptographers and with the Bureau's assistance. Frequently, through an examination of the messages and from a review of Bureau files, the Bureau can offer suspects for individuals involved.
> Belmont was frank with his colleagues:
> 
> It must be realized that the [deleted] cryptographers make certain assumptions as to meanings when deciphering these messages and thereafter the proper translations of Russian idioms can become a problem. It is for such reasons that [deleted] has indicated that almost anything included in a translation of one of these deciphered messages may in the future be radically revised."



"But the year 1995 was an epochal one for the study of American Communism. For in that year, thanks to the insistence of the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick* Moynihan of New York, who had long specialized in intelligence matters, some 2,900 documents collectively known as "the Venona papers" (a deliberately meaningless code phrase) were de-classified and published. These were radio messages from the top KGB agents *in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from approximately 1943 to 1948. They had been recorded at the time by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, but they were, of course, in code, and their decoding was an immensely arduous job carried out by a number of heroic government cryptanalysts over the period from 1945 to 1980.

A second new source of information on the American Communist Party was *the archives in Moscow of the defunct Soviet Union, *which began to be partially accessible to American investigators in the early 1990s, during the Yeltsin years.

The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it *absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, *obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was* infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union.*

Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists *had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals *who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry." And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe."

Small wonder, then, that *liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure *of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s."
The Claremont Institute - A Closer Look Under The Bed




The minor irritant is individuals such as you and your echo, who lean left...and have no actual knowledge....you wear ignorance as though it were a badge to be proud of.

....folks like myself who have engaged in indepth study in this area would laugh about you , but for the constant danger of you 'Fifth Columnists....'. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that *liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. *In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals. 





Here...from another book that I read, and you didn't:
"The federally funded National History Standards for elementary schools were released in 1994, cemented a revisionist view of American Communism for schoolteachers, as the guide mentions McCarthy over twenty times, while Edison and the Wright Brothers got no mention. It repeatedly condemns McCarthyism as an unmitigated evil[but]* the Hiss-Chambers and Rosenberg cases, the two dominant controversies of the anticommunist era, are described with bland, neutral language crafted to keep from implying guilt while not being quite so foolhardy as to actually assert innocence.*.National Standardsimplies that the cases are part and parcel of the McCartyite horror. 
From In Denial, by Haynes and Klehr, pg. 151





Over *81 of the names* McCarthy gave the Tydings committee resulting in resignations or movement of security risks. The New York Post's Eric Fettmann has noted: "growing historical evidence underscores that, whatever his rhetorical and investigative excesses - and they were substantial - *McCarthy was a lot closer to the truth about Communism* than were his foes."


----------



## Wry Catcher

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.



How long have you worked for the Ministry of Truth?


----------



## expatriate

I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these.  No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists.  No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that.  Times change.  Parties change.  Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception.  The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities.  Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE.  They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these.  No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists.  No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that.  Times change.  Parties change.  Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception.  The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities.  Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE.  They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.



"No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."

Now...there's a step in the right direction.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Wry Catcher said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long have you worked for the Ministry of Truth?
Click to expand...


Worked for????


I direct it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Since you are not in charge of this discussion and your question is not germane, don't worry if I ignore it.

You truly do not understand the narrative of politics in America.  I bet you are going to say all violence is on the right, never on the left.  Are you going to tell us the communists and many socialists are not authoritarian leftists.

I know what MR will do, while you are afraid of what he will do (move to the center).



Bfgrn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to be silly.
> 
> Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney has proposed NOTHING that could possibly mistaken for centrist. He told us last night he would end Medicare for people under 60. He told us last night that he would privatize the commons, and anything else he can possibly liquidate. He said he would pander to the most extreme elements of the GOP, the TEABAGGERS and implement their EXTREME anti-environment agenda. He told us last night he would implement Paul Ryan's budget which means the word 'public' would no longer exist. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of the Ryan budget estimates to 2050. Defense spending would be kept relatively constant, while what the government has left would be "0.75 percent of GDP - about 100 billion for everything besides defense that the government does." That's what is devoted to education and vocational training now. Suppose that was kept.
> 
> "It would leave nothing for infrastructure. Nothing for unemployment insurance. Nothing for food stamps. Nothing for border patrol. Nothing for the FDA, FAA, or FBI. Nothing for research and development. Nothing, even, to pay people to work in government! Do you think it's important to support our veterans with health care, education, and retirement security? Sorry. Veterans programs currently cost more than 1% of our GDP. There would be no room."
> 
> The Congressional Budget office estimates that Ryan's "long-term budget, if you project forward defense spending, would cut 91 percent from these and all other non-defense programs. Ninety-one percent." That's 91 percent of The Public gone: Medical and scientific research. Pell grants. The EPA. The NIH. NPR. The small business administration. Unemployment insurance. Regulation of corporations. Money to help state and local governments. Highway repair. Air traffic controllers. And all government employees doing everything The Public does.
> 
> So, you should neg rep yourself Jake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"
> 
> Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?
> 
> Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here is PC's boyfriend explaining on the New Right can "change that" narrative.  Watch John Oliver expose far right thinking wish to change "facts, reality, and the meaning of words."

RNC 2012 - The Road to Jeb Bush 2016 - We Can Change That - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/30/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...on the hatred..."
> Now, nonoodles....look each of our posts....you're the angry one...I've been laughing at  you all day.
> 
> 
> "A pathetic Anne Coulter..."
> So....which of her best-sellers have you read?
> 
> 
> You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......
> 
> .....could you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were laughing all day you must have finally gotten the humor in my original statement. I did not think that it was that funny though, but it is good to see that you can laugh at yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....which of her best-sellers have you read?
> 
> 
> You couldn't be dumb enough to proclaim a strong view without ever having read any of 'em......
> 
> .....could you?
Click to expand...


Read some of How To Talk To a Liberal. If You Must at a friends house when things were slow. Read an excerpt from If Democrats Had a Brain, They Would Be Republicans. Have seen her on television, read magazine articles,  yada yada yada.


----------



## Bfgrn

JakeStarkey said:


> Since you are not in charge of this discussion and your question is not germane, don't worry if I ignore it.
> 
> You truly do not understand the narrative of politics in America.  I bet you are going to say all violence is on the right, never on the left.  Are you going to tell us the communists and many socialists are not authoritarian leftists.
> 
> I know what MR will do, while you are afraid of what he will do (move to the center).
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to be silly.
> 
> Romney took last night easily, more easily than I expected, and I expect the next debate for Romney to move ever more to the center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony there Jake. When I asked you to tell me who the far left were in Congress, your answer was: "I can. Can you?"
> 
> Well Jake, you can't even tell who the far right are. I can. Can you?
> 
> Your Mittens told us how far right he is. Farther right than Bush. But you can't tell, because THAT is what you believe too.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I know exactly what I heard from Mittens Jake. Maybe you just weren't listening. You say he is not a teabagger, but Mitten has said he doesn't believe in climate change and he emphatically embraced the teabaggers anti-environment agenda when he promised to build the Keystone pipeline on Day 1 of his administration.

Maybe you heard it and you are just not smart enough to know what he was saying. And maybe you are not smart enough to know how dangerous that pipeline is to our people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I know what I heard last night, and I was listening right along with you.

You biggest and worse lie of all is that MR is a Tea Bagger.  He is not, and the Tea Party is terrified of him now.

Hey, you Tea folks, I told you your day of reckoning was coming.  Guess what, it is here.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> I know what I heard last night, and I was listening right along with you.
> 
> You biggest and worse lie of all is that MR is a Tea Bagger.  He is not, and the Tea Party is terrified of him now.
> 
> Hey, you Tea folks, I told you your day of reckoning was coming.  Guess what, it is here.



"...and the Tea Party is terrified of him now."

Wow, are you fulla beans!


And you claim you heard the debate???

Is it the A.D.D. acting up again?

Missed the parts where he referred to the Creator, the individual, role of government, our Founding Documents, support for the military?



Do I have to spoon-feed you Lefties every time????



1.	Look, the right course for America's government, we were talking about the role of government, is *not to become the economic player,* picking winners and losers, *telling people what kind of* health treatment they can receive, taking over the health care system that has existed in this country for a long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world.

The right answer for government is say, How do we make the private sector become more efficient and more effective? How do we get schools to be more competitive? Let's grade them. I propose we grade our schools so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing, so they can take their child to a -- to a school that he's being more successful.


2. The role of government: Look behind us. *The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.* The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.
First, *life and liberty.* We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a *military second to none*. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military.

Second, in that line that says *we are endowed by our creator with our rights,* I believe we must maintain our commitment to *religious tolerance and freedom* in this country. That statement also says that we are *endowed by our creator *with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are *less fortunate a*nd can't care for themselves are cared by -- by one another.

We're a nation that believes that we're all *children of the same god *and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are *elderly and have problems *and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. And we -- we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining* for individuals t*he right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of *free individuals. *And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a -- a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than *free people pursuing their dreams.* And it's not working.
Transcript of Wednesday's presidential debate - CNN.com



That's conservative talk...and I'm in love!


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these.  No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists.  No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that.  Times change.  Parties change.  Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception.  The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities.  Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE.  They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."
> 
> Now...there's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...


why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat?  Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists?  That is all part of the public record.  Democrats in the south used to be racist bums.  They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation.  The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis.  It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen.  Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE  the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.  

Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling.  Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't.  What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.  

The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell.  I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however.  Honesty is always the best policy.  Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled _en masse_ by those dastardly democrats.

Oh.... don't think that will work?  awwww too bad.  I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The conservative talk was there, which we wanted, but the Tea Party nonsense was gone.  

One example, he will use Romneycare at the national level, which we all knew he would have to do.  Yes, the national government is not going to eliminate Medicare; yes, the national government is not going to eliminate Social Security; they are going to be there forty years from now for the younger American.  Yes, the national government will continue to make the heath industry meet the needs of ALL Americans.

You far righties can cut and paste all you want.

We all heard what Romney said last night, and the Night of the Tea Party is over.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never really certain what the underlying motivation is for threads like these.  No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists.  No one is denying that blacks used to vote for republicans because of that.  Times change.  Parties change.  Neither major party bears much resemblace today to the party they were at their inception.  The fact of the matter is that the democratic party has stopped being the party of southern racists and has become the pary that more closely represents the concerns of the poor and of minorities.  Blacks don't need to be reminded of who the democratic party USED TO BE.  They are well aware of that, just as they are well aware of how the two parties line up today....and they vote accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."
> 
> Now...there's a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat?  Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists?  That is all part of the public record.  Democrats in the south used to be racist bums.  They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation.  The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis.  It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen.  Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE  the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.
> 
> Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling.  Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't.  What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.
> 
> The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell.  I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however.  Honesty is always the best policy.  Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled _en masse_ by those dastardly democrats.
> 
> Oh.... don't think that will work?  awwww too bad.  I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.
Click to expand...



1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.

Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.

Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.

a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
Yup...you.
But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.

So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....


2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?

Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.

And it's not because Republicans are racists.

This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.

Go ahead...prove the statement.

Or accept the deserved contumely.


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No one is denying that the democratic party USED TO BE the party of southern racist segregationists."
> 
> Now...there's a step in the right direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat?  Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists?  That is all part of the public record.  Democrats in the south used to be racist bums.  They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation.  The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis.  It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen.  Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE  the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.
> 
> Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling.  Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't.  What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.
> 
> The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell.  I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however.  Honesty is always the best policy.  Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled _en masse_ by those dastardly democrats.
> 
> Oh.... don't think that will work?  awwww too bad.  I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.
> 
> Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.
> 
> Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
> The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.
> 
> a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
> Yup...you.
> But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.
> 
> So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....
> 
> 
> 2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?
> 
> Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.
> 
> And it's not because Republicans are racists.
> 
> This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.
> 
> Go ahead...prove the statement.
> 
> Or accept the deserved contumely.
Click to expand...


I don't need to "prove" any statement.  The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need.  And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number.  It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists.  That clearly is not working all that well for you.  Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Political Chic will cut and paste nonsense, trying to overwhelm your common sense with her nonsense.

Fact: 90% of blacks obviously think her crap is crap.

Fact: the GOP has to reach out to blacks in a way that blacks believe to be realistic.

Fact: we are still waiting for the GOP to do that.

Fact: when more than 35% of blacks vote GOP for the first time in since the early 1960s, we can believe the GOP is trying.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone deny the fact that Strom Thurmond was once a democrat?  Why would anyone deny the fact that the democrats used to own the south because they were a party dominated by racists and segregationists?  That is all part of the public record.  Democrats in the south used to be racist bums.  They all either eventually got out of politics, or changed their party affiliation.  The democratic party began a purposeful plan to sever its roots with racism starting with HHH's great speech at the 1948 DNC in Minneapolis.  It wasn't a plan that could happen overnight, but there is no doubt that it did, indeed happen.  Blacks in America used to vote over 90% for the party of Abe Lincoln and now, a mere 64 years after the democrats STARTED to reposition themselves in the electorate, 90% of blacks now vote for the party that USED TO BE  the party of Jim Crow... clearly, they wouldn't vote for democrats if we were STILL the party of Jim Crow.
> 
> Like I said... the idea behind even starting a thread like this is sort of baffling.  Republicans are furious that blacks don't vote for the GOP candidates anymore and, on one hand, they think that if they keep repeating the fact that democrats used to be southern segregationists, that will change black America's mind... but it doesn't.  What the republicans REALLY want to say is that those lazy neeegroes just wanna sit back, drink their malt liquor, cash their welfare checks and keep voting for the democrats who give them stuff and they are all too stoooopid to figure out that the democrats - supposedly - are keeping them penned up in their urban ghetto plantations and just using them to get easy votes.
> 
> The problem is.... how do you actually tell a black person that he or she is a lazy welfare hog and that, if only they'd put down the crack pipe, get their heads straight, and vote republican, they'd be MUCH better off??? That's a tough sell.  I urge my republican friends to give it a try, however.  Honesty is always the best policy.  Quit talking about racism from 60 years ago and start talking about how you think that blacks are all so stupid that they have let themselves be fooled _en masse_ by those dastardly democrats.
> 
> Oh.... don't think that will work?  awwww too bad.  I guess you'll just have to suck it up and realize that you are destined to be the party of racist white folks and that blacks, and increasingly hispanics, don't really want to have anything to do with you.... and it's not because the democrats have tricked anyone... it's because blacks totally figured you guys out along about 1968 or 72 and they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments and they want NOTHING to do with y'all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.
> 
> Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.
> 
> Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
> The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.
> 
> a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
> Yup...you.
> But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.
> 
> So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....
> 
> 
> 2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?
> 
> Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.
> 
> And it's not because Republicans are racists.
> 
> This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.
> 
> Go ahead...prove the statement.
> 
> Or accept the deserved contumely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to "prove" any statement.  The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need.  And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number.  It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists.  That clearly is not working all that well for you.  Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?
Click to expand...


1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "

Let me guess....another product of government schools.
Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.

Dim-wit.

Some are right, some are wrong. 

a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
We're called conservatives.

The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Political Chic will cut and paste nonsense, trying to overwhelm your common sense with her nonsense.
> 
> Fact: 90% of blacks obviously think her crap is crap.
> 
> Fact: the GOP has to reach out to blacks in a way that blacks believe to be realistic.
> 
> Fact: we are still waiting for the GOP to do that.
> 
> Fact: when more than 35% of blacks vote GOP for the first time in since the early 1960s, we can believe the GOP is trying.



What a stupid analysis.


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You either ignorant of the culture or disingenuous if you are going to contend that many, most Democrats, don't know that Democrats were segregationists and racists for a century, that they controlled votes in the Senate which allowed them to block every anti-lynching bill, and that LBJ prevented enforcement mechanisms in Republican civil rights bills.
> 
> Liberals are shocked to find out the truth.
> 
> Did you see the quote that opens the OP?
> The author is a way left Liberal Democrat on this board.
> 
> a. Who wrote this? " in 2002, the senior republican in the US Senate said that America would be a better country TODAY if we had elected a racist segregationist, who supported a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining segregation as our national policy and permanently banning interracial marriage, as president in 1948 instead of Truman."
> Yup...you.
> But you weren't aware of the fact that the same party won elections for segregationist supporters Carter and Clinton, were you.
> 
> So...don't bring the 'everyone knows...'....
> 
> 
> 2. So.....what is your analysis of why blacks switched loyalties from the party of Lincoln to the party of FDR?
> 
> Unless you have a knowledge of the era, you don't know.
> 
> And it's not because Republicans are racists.
> 
> This..."...they KNOW which party carries on the Jim Crow sentiments..." is what marks you as a fool.
> 
> Go ahead...prove the statement.
> 
> Or accept the deserved contumely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to "prove" any statement.  The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need.  And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number.  It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists.  That clearly is not working all that well for you.  Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "
> 
> Let me guess....another product of government schools.
> Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.
> 
> Dim-wit.
> 
> Some are right, some are wrong.
> 
> a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
> We're called conservatives.
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
Click to expand...


Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"

And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The stupidity of your reply reveals that you cannot rebuke it.

Of course you cannot rebuke the truth.



PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political Chic will cut and paste nonsense, trying to overwhelm your common sense with her nonsense.
> 
> Fact: 90% of blacks obviously think her crap is crap.
> 
> Fact: the GOP has to reach out to blacks in a way that blacks believe to be realistic.
> 
> Fact: we are still waiting for the GOP to do that.
> 
> Fact: when more than 35% of blacks vote GOP for the first time in since the early 1960s, we can believe the GOP is trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid analysis.
Click to expand...


----------



## Salt Jones

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.



So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Salt Jones said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?
Click to expand...


What is "the liberal/black agenda"?


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to "prove" any statement.  The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need.  And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number.  It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists.  That clearly is not working all that well for you.  Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "
> 
> Let me guess....another product of government schools.
> Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.
> 
> Dim-wit.
> 
> Some are right, some are wrong.
> 
> a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
> We're called conservatives.
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
Click to expand...


"...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."


You'd be losin' some bucks.


But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "
> 
> Let me guess....another product of government schools.
> Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.
> 
> Dim-wit.
> 
> Some are right, some are wrong.
> 
> a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
> We're called conservatives.
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."
> 
> 
> You'd be losin' some bucks.
> 
> 
> But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
> Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
Click to expand...


actually.  your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition.  every dime of it.  

so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree?  You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.

I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.


----------



## rightwinger

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to "prove" any statement.  The fact that, 60 years ago, 90% of blacks voted with the GOP and now, 90% vote for the democrats is all the proof I need.  And as to why that happened, I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... because whether it is or isn't doesn't change that 90% number.  It seems to me that it is YOUR party that needs to figure out why blacks abandoned them completely in the space of one generation... and then you need to figure out a way to try and convince them to come back that is more effective than your current approach of bleating away about how democrats used to be Jim Crow racists.  That clearly is not working all that well for you.  Got any other approaches ready to roll out for a test drive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "
> 
> Let me guess....another product of government schools.
> Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.
> 
> Dim-wit.
> 
> Some are right, some are wrong.
> 
> a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
> We're called conservatives.
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
Click to expand...


Don't be too sure...

Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste

She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."
> 
> 
> You'd be losin' some bucks.
> 
> 
> But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
> Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually.  your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition.  every dime of it.
> 
> so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree?  You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.
> 
> I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.
Click to expand...




Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."


Case closed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "I have my opinion and you have yours, and I really don't CARE whether you think my opinion is correct or not... "
> 
> Let me guess....another product of government schools.
> Any answer is good enough...'cause it's an opinion.
> 
> Dim-wit.
> 
> Some are right, some are wrong.
> 
> a. The Liberal's mantra; "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Some of us actually seek truth and knowledge.
> We're called conservatives.
> 
> The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be too sure...
> 
> Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste
> 
> She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter
Click to expand...


Would you mind if I put up an OP with your name in the title?

If you say 'no,' I won't.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."
> 
> 
> You'd be losin' some bucks.
> 
> 
> But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
> Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually.  your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition.  every dime of it.
> 
> so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree?  You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.
> 
> I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


What was yours?

"Highlight text, right click, select copy"


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I know to be true:  MY party made a concerted effort to sever its ties with southern racism and, as a result, the south went from being solid blue to being nearly solid red... it was a big price to pay to rid ourselves of our racist past, but we were successful in doing so, and the PROOF of our success is the FACT that, in the space of less than one generation, blacks in America went from voting as a reliable solid bloc for the republicans to voting as a reliable solid bloc for US.  There is _prima facie_ evidence to support this.  I have spoken, over the years, with many folks in MY party from a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups and, based upon these myriad conversations,  I have a pretty good idea why MY party receives support from minorities.  And, my guess is, that you, too, know why minorities overwhelmingly vote for democrats.  We don't need to publicly air our opinions as to the cause of that seismic shift in minority political support... I know what my party DID, starting in 1948, and the evidence is in the public domain to show the results of those efforts.  From the democrat's perspective, we don't need to DO anything other than keep being the party that we are to continue to enjoy that overwhelming support from blacks.  The question that you might want to consider asking yourself is, "what did WE, as republicans, do, to so totally and rapidly alienate blacks in America and, do we really care whether or not they come back to the GOP or not?"
> 
> And trust me sweetie... you don't know jack about my educational background, but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college than you did and a better graduate school after that. My baby daughter most likely has you beat on both those measures as well. Your ad hominem insults are nothing more than convincing evidence that you know you are losing this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be too sure...
> 
> Political Chic has a masters degree in Cut and Paste
> 
> She is also a disciple of Ann Coulter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you mind if I put up an OP with your name in the title?
> 
> If you say 'no,' I won't.
Click to expand...


Go for it

We need another thread highlighting your ability to cut and paste


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...but I would be willing to bet a sizable sum that I went to a better college..."
> 
> 
> You'd be losin' some bucks.
> 
> 
> But if you actually did go to college....hardly evidenced by your post....a nicely written letter might get the tuition back.
> Just ten more points on your I.Q., and you could have gotten a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually.  your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition.  every dime of it.
> 
> so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree?  You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.
> 
> I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


no.  my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens.  And yours was?  

And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans.  Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours.  Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks.  It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now?  You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base.  If it works, don't fix it, eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Salty, you ask her to think and she grid locks.  She is consulting Coulter.


PoliticalChic said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.	In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.	"The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.	*While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.	Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.	But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.	Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.	*The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.	Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.	Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.	Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.	Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.	Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.	Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.	Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.	Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.	Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.	Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.	Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.	Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.	Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened to all the white Democrat voters who had put the segregationists Stennis, Long, Russell, Gore, Fulbright et al into office? They stayed democrat and voted the liberal/black agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "the liberal/black agenda"?
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually.  your folks and the rest of a grateful nation paid my tuition.  every dime of it.
> 
> so where did you go to college? and from where did you get your graduate degree?  You talk all sassy, but words are cheap and everybody on the internet is big strong and good looking.
> 
> I also noticed how you completely ignored the first paragraph of my reply and went directly into ad hominem trash talking... that seems to be your forte... not something I would be proud of, but clearly, it matters to you - apparently even more than carrying on a cordial and informative discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no.  my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens.  And yours was?
> 
> And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans.  Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours.  Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks.  It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now?  You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base.  If it works, don't fix it, eh?
Click to expand...


In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are such a coward, Brfgrn.  You certainly did not run with the bad dogs in the day at all.

Romney, as you well know, since you listened Wednesday night, gave a right of center approach, not a Tea Party approach.

You can't refute that, and that just burns you.  Tough.


----------



## Sallow

rightwinger said:


> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since



Don't bother.

PC is bad at history and cognition.

But she's brilliant at cut and paste.


----------



## Sallow

JakeStarkey said:


> You are such a coward, Brfgrn.  You certainly did not run with the bad dogs in the day at all.
> 
> Romney, as you well know, since you listened Wednesday night, gave a right of center approach, not a Tea Party approach.
> 
> You can't refute that, and that just burns you.  Tough.



Of course he did.

He dropped the "etch -a- sketch" bomb. He's completely un-moored from the Tea Party.

Which wasn't the case just a few short months ago.

Fortunately..we have the video.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have said for months that Romney would move away from the crazees; he has to do so.

Obamaniacs have an opportunity to lever the holes in the narrative.

Romney never should have kissed up to the TP, but it is what it is.


----------



## Sallow

JakeStarkey said:


> I have said for months that Romney would move away from the crazees; he has to do so.
> 
> Obamaniacs have an opportunity to lever the holes in the narrative.
> 
> Romney never should have kissed up to the TP, but it is what it is.





Erm.

One day you make make sense.

That isn't today.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a case of Dixiecrats changing party affiliation
> 
> What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation
> 
> The south has been Republican ever since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't bother.
> 
> PC is bad at history and cognition.
> 
> But she's brilliant at cut and paste.
Click to expand...



You better be wearing the Hurt Locker outfit


----------



## Greenbeard

1. The Democratic nominee for President in 1948 was Harry Truman.



> Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, desegregating and requiring equal opportunity in the Armed Forces. After several years of planning, recommendations and revisions between Truman, the Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity and the various branches of the military, Army units became racially integrated.
> 
> Another executive order, also in 1948, made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race. A third, in 1951, established the Committee on Government Contract Compliance (CGCC). This committee ensured that defense contractors did not discriminate because of race.



2. The Dixiecrats walked out of the Democratic Convention in 1948 following a very famous pro-civil rights speech. They chose to briefly form their own third party and fielded a candidate against the Democratic nominee.



> When Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey addressed the convention, he urged the Democratic Party to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights," prompting a walkout by Southern delegates who later nominated Strom Thurmond as the presidential nominee of the States' Rights Party (Dixiecrats).



3. Strom Thurmond did in fact become a Republican. Over the Democratic Party's position on civil rights, even.



> Thurmond was increasingly at odds with the national Democratic Party, some of whose leaders were supporting the civil rights movement led by African Americans in the South seeking enforcement of their right as citizens to vote and an end to racial segregation. On September 16, 1964, he switched his party affiliation to the Republican Party, which was seeking to revive its presence in the South by appealing to conservative voters.


----------



## expatriate

PoliticalChic said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this the college motto: "I don't need to "prove" any statement."
> 
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no.  my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens.  And yours was?
> 
> And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans.  Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours.  Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks.  It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now?  You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base.  If it works, don't fix it, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
Click to expand...


Columbia versus the U.S. Naval Academy?  most would say it was close, but not a tie, by any means.  I am sure your school pride is nearly as strong as mine.... so let's agree to disagree.  Grad school?  where was that?


----------



## rightwinger

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.  my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens.  And yours was?
> 
> And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans.  Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours.  Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks.  It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now?  You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base.  If it works, don't fix it, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Columbia versus the U.S. Naval Academy?  most would say it was close, but not a tie, by any means.  I am sure your school pride is nearly as strong as mine.... so let's agree to disagree.  Grad school?  where was that?
Click to expand...


Annapolis beats the shit out of Columbia

Columbia is second tier Ivy League.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sallow, for a lefty, you are not a bad person at all.  But, yeah, lefty, it makes perfect sense.

Now let's see what MR and BHO are gonna do about it.

The last month just became very, very interesting.



Sallow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said for months that Romney would move away from the crazees; he has to do so.
> 
> Obamaniacs have an opportunity to lever the holes in the narrative.
> 
> Romney never should have kissed up to the TP, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm.
> 
> One day you make make sense.
> 
> That isn't today.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

They are both great schools, Columbia particularly in journalism.

It's just that Political Chic has been drawn over by the Dark Lord.


----------



## PoliticalChic

expatriate said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.  my school motto was Ex Scientia Tridens.  And yours was?
> 
> And... I do NOT need to prove any statement regarding the fact that blacks no longer vote for republicans.  Why they chose to abandon your party and vote for mine is not my problem to explain.... it is yours.  Or, as I suggested, you could, as Nixon did, determine that those southern neeeeegroes weren't needed by your side any more as long as you could keep subtly stirring the racial hatred that existed amongst southern white folks.  It has worked for you for a long time - the south is nearly all dead red... why change now?  You run the house of representatives and you do so with a whites only power base.  If it works, don't fix it, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Columbia versus the U.S. Naval Academy?  most would say it was close, but not a tie, by any means.  I am sure your school pride is nearly as strong as mine.... so let's agree to disagree.  Grad school?  where was that?
Click to expand...


"...most would say it was close,..."
Doubt it.
First of all....last list I saw had Columbia at #7, Naval at #16.



Second.....no other school has a song as good as this one:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsXseZJPg0]Columbia University Fight Song: Roar, Lion, Roar! - YouTube[/ame]



The big win for your alma mater vs. mine? Patriotism.



The point, to review....


The Democrat Party: slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.


No, no 'racist southern strategy,'  that's no more than moral preening by the Left.......and gains the Republican Party has made in the South has been due, not to espousing racism, but, rather, due to the Democrat loses by espousing of far Left and totalitarian principles.



I believe my three threads on the subject have proven so.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> In lumine Tuo videbimus lumen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Columbia versus the U.S. Naval Academy?  most would say it was close, but not a tie, by any means.  I am sure your school pride is nearly as strong as mine.... so let's agree to disagree.  Grad school?  where was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annapolis beats the shit out of Columbia
> 
> Columbia is second tier Ivy League.
Click to expand...




Wow...you sure go out of your way to prove you know absolutely nothing.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Columbia versus the U.S. Naval Academy?  most would say it was close, but not a tie, by any means.  I am sure your school pride is nearly as strong as mine.... so let's agree to disagree.  Grad school?  where was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annapolis beats the shit out of Columbia
> 
> Columbia is second tier Ivy League.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...you sure go out of your way to prove you know absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


Harvard, Yale, Princeton.....First tier Ivy
Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, Brown......did I get to Columbia yet?

Annapolis is an elite institution that first and foremost teaches character. Something Ann Coulter wannabes lack

Even those of us in the sewer realize that


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annapolis beats the shit out of Columbia
> 
> Columbia is second tier Ivy League.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...you sure go out of your way to prove you know absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harvard, Yale, Princeton.....First tier Ivy
> Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, Brown......did I get to Columbia yet?
> 
> Annapolis is an elite institution that first and foremost teaches character. Something Ann Coulter wannabes lack
> 
> Even those of us in the sewer realize that
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Moral preening" by the left on racist righty southern strategy?  90% of blacks don't think so.  Ann Coulter is the Dark Lord's scullery maid.



PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...you sure go out of your way to prove you know absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harvard, Yale, Princeton.....First tier Ivy
> Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, Brown......did I get to Columbia yet?
> 
> Annapolis is an elite institution that first and foremost teaches character. Something Ann Coulter wannabes lack
> 
> Even those of us in the sewer realize that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.    It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. *Not only is it provably untrue*, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.    In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as *a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. *They were *segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.*
> 
> a.    "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party.  The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan:  Segregation Forever!  Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
> Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
> 
> b.    *While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.*
> 
> c.    Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....*Democrats!*
> 
> 
> 3.    But the most important s*egregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate,* where civil rights bills went to die.
> 
> a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the *US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills *"when action was most needed."[3] From *1882-1968,* "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] *None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"*
> Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.    Heres a great opportunity to see the work* the media does:* challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is *Thurmond.the only one who became a Republican. *Get the idea?
> 
> a.    *The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats* to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The most important points: *all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats*, and remained same for the rest of their livesexcept for one.
> a. And they were *not conservative*.
> 
> b.    Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit *16 years later.*
> Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
> 
> c.    Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
> 
> d.    Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
> 
> e.    Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
> 
> f.    Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
> 
> g.    Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
> 
> h.    Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
> 
> i.    Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN  supporter
> 
> j.    Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
> 
> k.    Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
> 
> l.    Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
> 
> m.    Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
> 
> n.    Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
> 
> The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
> 
> Notice how *segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy?* Not all Democrats.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
> 
> 
> So....proof of why blacks should reconsider party affiliation, and shun the Democrats...the party of
> 
> slavery, segregation, sedition, and secularization.


----------



## PoliticalChic

"Joe Biden's George Wallace Links Resurface After Georgia Speech​During his speech at the Atlanta University Center Consortium in Georgia on Tuesday urging Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, the president referenced the governor who infamously said "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" during his inaugural speech in 1963.

That same year, Wallace also stood at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in an attempt to stop Black students from enrolling at the school.


Biden named Wallace as an opposing example to civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King while highlighting why elected officials should back the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to make it easier for people to cast their ballots in elections and combat voter suppression laws which have been drawn up in Republican states.

"I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered?" Biden said.

"At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?





...Biden "once bragged about being praised" by Wallace."








						Joe Biden's George Wallace Links Resurface After Georgia Speech
					

The president asked elected officials if they want to be on "side of Dr. King or George Wallace?" decades after he "boasted" about praise from segregationist.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> "Joe Biden's George Wallace Links Resurface After Georgia Speech​During his speech at the Atlanta University Center Consortium in Georgia on Tuesday urging Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, the president referenced the governor who infamously said "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" during his inaugural speech in 1963.
> 
> That same year, Wallace also stood at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in an attempt to stop Black students from enrolling at the school.
> 
> 
> Biden named Wallace as an opposing example to civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King while highlighting why elected officials should back the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to make it easier for people to cast their ballots in elections and combat voter suppression laws which have been drawn up in Republican states.
> 
> "I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered?" Biden said.
> 
> "At consequential moments in history, they present a choice: Do you want to on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?
> View attachment 589792
> 
> ...Biden "once bragged about being praised" by Wallace."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Biden's George Wallace Links Resurface After Georgia Speech
> 
> 
> The president asked elected officials if they want to be on "side of Dr. King or George Wallace?" decades after he "boasted" about praise from segregationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


So, Wallace praised Biden but Biden did not praise Wallace


----------



## whitehall

American schools lag behind almost every civilized country on the globe and democrats intend to keep it that way. How else can they convince people that the democrat mob that lynched Black people in the 20's were really republicans or that a man in a dress is really a woman?


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> American schools lag behind almost every civilized country on the globe and democrats intend to keep it that way. How else can they convince people that the democrat mob that lynched Black people in the 20's were really republicans or that a man in a dress is really a woman?


Those who lynched blacks people were Conservatives trying to maintain white power


----------



## PoliticalChic

whitehall said:


> American schools lag behind almost every civilized country on the globe and democrats intend to keep it that way. How else can they convince people that the democrat mob that lynched Black people in the 20's were really republicans or that a man in a dress is really a woman?



College: Give me four years to teach the children and the _*seed I have sown will never be uprooted*_. Vladimir _*Lenin*_.


Nor did they stop at schools.
"Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths." Is this the end of progressive America?


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> Those who lynched blacks people were Conservatives trying to maintain white power


They make such an attempt to rewrite history. And it is modern history that you and I lived through.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> They make such an attempt to rewrite history. And it is modern history that you and I lived through.




History???


Sure thing:  here is your remedial.


This is what you vote for....now explain it:

1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne


2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Knights of the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.


3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.


4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress



5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.


6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.


7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.



8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..


9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.


10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.



11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?



12. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism.



13. It's the party of felons over law-abiding actual citizens



14. No shared values, not an American party…they oppose free speech, the second amendment, and the free practice of one’s religion.



15. Recent development prove the Democrats to be, as well, the party of rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists.



Democrats: Bull Connor, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, Al Gore, Sr., Bill Clinton….all racists, all Democrats.


----------



## whitehall

rightwinger said:


> Those who lynched blacks people were Conservatives trying to maintain white power


They were democrats trying to maintain white power but they get a pass for being "conservative" democrats. How does that work?


----------



## PoliticalChic

whitehall said:


> They were democrats trying to maintain white power but they get a pass for being "conservative" democrats. How does that work?




That liar loves to cloud the issue.
There was no such term as 'conservative' when the racists pulled the lever. It simply said "Democrat."


----------



## Synthaholic

Synthaholic said:


> More PoliticalChic cut-n-paste nonsense.
> 
> Oh, goody!


10 years ago PoliticalChic got all of her posts from cutting and pasting other people's thoughts, other people's words.

10 years later she's still doing it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> 10 years ago PoliticalChic got all of her posts from cutting and pasting other people's thoughts, other people's words.
> 
> 10 years later she's still doing it.




Yet  you still can't dispute any of 'em.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


>


Ronald Reagan launched his potus campaign from Philadelphia Mississippi.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> That liar loves to cloud the issue.
> There was no such term as 'conservative' when the racists pulled the lever. It simply said "Democrat."


Conservative (or Liberal) refers to a political ideology.

Republican (or Democrat) refers to the name of a political Party.

You're not smart.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> Conservative (or Liberal) refers to a political ideology.
> 
> Republican (or Democrat) refers to the name of a political Party.
> 
> You're not smart.





Just somewhere between 'smart' and you.


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> They were democrats trying to maintain white power but they get a pass for being "conservative" democrats. How does that work?


Those Conservative Democrats became Conservative Republicans after the Civil Rights bill passed


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> Those who lynched blacks people were Conservatives trying to maintain white power



They were still Democrats.  Do not confuse the Democrats making a huge shift in the 1960's with their still being the party that opposed most of those civil rights bills for decades.


----------



## rightwinger

Mushroom said:


> They were still Democrats.  Do not confuse the Democrats making a huge shift in the 1960's with their still being the party that opposed most of those civil rights bills for decades.


Different Party
Republicans are different than they were in 1860 also

Slavery existed in the South for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> Different Party
> Republicans are different than they were in 1860 also
> 
> Slavery existed in the South for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed



And what does that have to do with the 1960's and afterwards?

Nothing.

Although traditionally, the Republicans in that era were the far more liberal of the two parties.  And the Democrats by far the more Conservative of the two parties.  But the Republicans changed little, while the Democrats in the 1960's made a hard change from Conservative to ultra-liberal.  the more "Popularist" of the members stayed with the party as they made the change, while others changed as the Republicans were now the more conservative of the two.

Hence, George Wallace putting on a front and pretending to be a "Liberal Anti-Segregationist" so he could stay in the party, meanwhile continuing to act as he always had before.  Most people tend to forget that for well over a century, the Democrats were the far-right party in the country.  Now they are far-left, but they are still an extremist party that tends to attract extremists.


----------



## rightwinger

Mushroom said:


> But the Republicans changed little, while the Democrats in the 1960's made a hard change from Conservative to ultra-liberal. the more "Popularist" of the members stayed with the party as they made the change, while others changed as the Republicans were now the more conservative of the two.


Republicans of the 1960s had a liberal wing with Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Arlen Spector. They also had an ultra conservative wing led by Barry Goldwater
In 1980, Reagan solidified the Conservative takeover of the party and drove out the liberals


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> Republicans of the 1960s had a liberal wing with Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javitts. They also had an ultra conservative wing led by Barry Goldwater
> In 1980, Reagan solidified the Conservative takeover of the party and drove out the liberals



They were the Liberal Party.  Hell, most recognize Richard Nixon as the most Liberal President in US history.  The Democrats were by far much more Conservative.

And the era of Reagan was not so much of a "takeover", as shifting the party more towards an International Cooperative aspect.  As the party had long been rather Isolationist, and he pushed them more towards working with other nations that had happened before.  Plus finally recognizing that they were by default the "Conservative Party" as the Democrats were the ones that drove out most of their Conservatives.

And the funny thing is, you are not the first I have heard make that claim.  But tell me, what Liberals did President Reagan "drive out" of the party?  I have asked this before, and interestingly have yet to get a real answer.


----------



## rightwinger

Mushroom said:


> And the funny thing is, you are not the first I have heard make that claim. But tell me, what Liberals did President Reagan "drive out" of the party? I have asked this before, and interestingly have yet to get a real answer.


Reagan and Goldwater had a long battle with Rockefeller for control of the party. 
It was Newt Gingrich who drove out the Liberals and moderates


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Just somewhere between 'smart' and you.


No, you're ignorant about politics. You think what someone calls themselves is more important than what someone believes. That is superficial and shallow. But mostly ignorant.


----------



## Mushroom

rightwinger said:


> Reagan and Goldwater had a long battle with Rockefeller for control of the party.
> It was Newt Gingrich who drove out the Liberals and moderates



Wait, you already said it was Reagan.  Now it is Newt a decade later?  And Reagan was not involved in the "battle", that was Barry Goldwater.

To be more accurate, Nelson Rockefeller was the last of the "Northern Establishment", which was long the bulwark of the Republican Party since the start.  But by the 1960s that started to move to the West, and the newly liberalized Democrat Party took over the North-East.  He was also a proponent of lavish spending, something that the newer Republicans moved against by the 1970's.

You sure do have a mangled view of this, trying to mish-mash together several different decades and individuals together into some kind of strange soup.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mushroom said:


> as the Democrats were the ones that drove out most of their Conservatives.


Funny how rightwingers see giving voting rights to Blacks as "driving out conservatives".


----------



## Synthaholic

Mushroom said:


> He was also a proponent of lavish spending, *something that the newer Republicans moved against by the 1970's.*


Only in their rhetoric.


----------



## Mushroom

Synthaholic said:


> Funny how rightwingers see giving voting rights to Blacks as "driving out conservatives".



Did I say a thing about "blacks"?

And ironic, which was the party that was suppressing "black votes" prior to the Voting Rights Act?  And was strongly behind each of the Civil Rights Acts?  Funny, it was always the Republicans, and the strongest opposition was from Democrats.

Civil Rights Act passage in 1964.  39% of Democrats in the House opposed it (Majority party), as opposed to 20% of Republicans.  In the Senate, 37% of Democrats opposed it (again the Majority Party), but 20% of Republicans opposed it.  And in the "Southern Bloc Filibuster" of it in the Senate, 18 Democrats and a single Republican took part.

Strange, how the facts and history seem to say the exact opposite.


----------



## DudleySmith

Goldwater and William Buckley were responsible for driving the far rightwingers out of the GOP, i.e. the John Birchers and conspiracy nuts. They paved the way for both Reagan and Nixon's victories, even though it cost the Party its campaign against Kennedy. It was Nixon who not only expanded the Civil Rights legislation to include the all 50 states but made many of the statutes permanent. He also brought back racial quotas; for every great thing he did he also did something stupid, which is why he is both hated and admired at the same time by all sides. Nixon simply didn't give a crap about domestic issues outside of winning elections, having no ideology, and wanted to focus on foreign policy.


----------



## Mushroom

DudleySmith said:


> Nixon simply didn't give a crap about domestic issues outside of winning elections, having no ideology, and wanted to focus on foreign policy.



I would not say that.  You can not forget he also created the EPA, passed some of the most sweeping health care initiatives of the era, and started the "Treatment over incarceration" movements of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  As well as increasing trade and cooperation with Mexico.

Even my Aunt, who is a hard-core Democrats admits she liked a lot of the things that President Nixon did when he was in office.  Most of which is largely forgotten, other than he opened relations with China.


----------



## DudleySmith

Mushroom said:


> I would not say that.  You can not forget he also created the EPA, passed some of the most sweeping health care initiatives of the era, and started the "Treatment over incarceration" movements of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  As well as increasing trade and cooperation with Mexico.
> 
> Even my Aunt, who is a hard-core Democrats admits she liked a lot of the things that President Nixon did when he was in office.  Most of which is largely forgotten, other than he opened relations with China.



And a lot of that was about getting re-elected re the domestic stuff; he wasn't personally involved in creating a lot ofit, he left it to flunkies and other Republicans and bi-partisan committees to deal with; he worked welled with liberal Democrats and even had some on staff, like Patrick Moynihan, as advisors. He spent more time with Kissinger than anyone else.









						When Nixon & Moynihan Almost Revolutionized Welfare
					

Everything does feel broken. Worse than that, everything feels broken but it feels that those in power like it that way and do not wish to fix it. The schemes for gain are in their favor, and solut…




					theamericansun.com
				




"Moynihan and Nixon were political opposites with Moynihan a liberal policy wonk who slipped between government and academia while Nixon was a center-right politician. As noted in Ehrlichman’s book _Witness to Power_, it was a bit of a shock that Nixon tapped Moynihan to be a domestic policy advisor. As Ehrlichman notes, “Bob Finch persuaded Nixon that the problems of the time required Moynihan” (_Witness to Power_). Moynihan’s team proved to be an energetic group of young liberals that pushed Nixon and his conservative advisors. In the fall of 1969, they promoted Moynihan to a cabinet level to remove him from “operations, and into free-wheeling idea-generating” (_The Haldeman Diaries_). Moynihan’s big push was to “get rid of things that don’t work and try to build up the few that do”(_The Haldeman Diaries_). The cities were falling apart and there was no money. Almost all proposals submitted by Moynihan’s team had to be scrapped because money was so tight. This was also a different time where with the gold standard and international moves going on, the US was under pressure from foreign creditors and oil producers about expenditures that had run wild all through the 1960s. The perplexing problem the Nixon had to tackle was how to reform the welfare system as he had campaigned on, but how to do it in a manner that was soft in delivery, did not increase the deficit and was acceptable to the Democrat majority in Congress. Moynihan and Nixon put together a  Family Assistance Plan (F.A.P.) that acted as a universal basic income.


The Moynihan-Nixon F.A.P. was a plan to stop the programs of LBJ’s Great Society but keep the money flowing. As Ehrlichman notes, the programs often are ways to employ Yale grads with guilty consciences. Reduce all of the administration, the paperwork and the make work projects and just cut the checks. Conservative advisor Arthur Burns wanted to stop the programs entirely to stop taxing a blue collar worker to send money to a black mom to have more kids, while per Ehrlichman Moynihan argued that the administration should “cut out the social workers (who were mostly Yale graduates with pangs of conscience) who pandered to black malingerers. Just send the entitled poor a check each month… and that blue collar worker would begin to feel better”. There were two important changes to the welfare program as it forced work incentives (workfare) and did not require the “absence of a man” in the household. The goal was through forcing work or work training that it would eventually get more people off of the dole. The other change was drawing on the report that Moynihan famously put together years earlier for LBJ about the nature of black families. The key problem there was the matriarchal structure of many black homes, and the idea of welfare being paid only to single mothers exacerbated the issue. This was a policy intending to correct prior mistakes. It was designed to be efficient. "

... among other points. I think he was correct to focus on foreign strategies in those days, it was his trust in Ehrlichman and others that was faulty. It wasn't just China that was important, it was also the Soviets on the brink of Bankruptcy and on the verge of collapse, there was a global food shortage starting up that most people don't remember due to the 'oil crisis' dominating the front pages for the next decade. The death of the Brezhnev Doctrine left power vacuums in many counties around the world that needed to be taken advantage of as well.

I don't think Humphrey could have done as good a job as Nixon did on the international front, though if times were different and there were only domestic issues to worry about then yes, he would have been a  better choice than Nixon; different times require different types of leaders. McGovern was in the same vein as Humphrey, and probably a disaster at foreign policy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> No, you're ignorant about politics. You think what someone calls themselves is more important than what someone believes. That is superficial and shallow. But mostly ignorant.




How about we leave the decision up to our individual readers....m'kay???


----------



## Jets

Interesting article that touches upon this issue:

_To belabor the obvious, the Republican Party has always been our more conservative political party, and the South has always been our most conservative region. But Southern conservatives were alienated from the GOP because of slavery and the Civil War. However much affinity they might have for Republicans on issues such as national defense or taxes, they were never going to formally join the party of Abraham Lincoln.

And so America had a historical anomaly, in which conservative Southerners found themselves permanent members of our more liberal political party, the Democrats. It took a great deal of compromise and political skill to keep Northern liberals and Southern conservatives sufficiently allied to win the White House and control of Congress.

The first cracks in this unholy alliance appeared as early as 1938. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated by the lack of support many Southern Democrats were giving to various New Deal programs, tried to purge some of them in the Democratic primaries. This effort failed miserably and Republicans made big gains thanks to Democratic disunity. The result further alienated Southern conservatives from Roosevelt.










						The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”
					

The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation




					newrepublic.com
				



_


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Interesting article that touches upon this issue:
> 
> _To belabor the obvious, the Republican Party has always been our more conservative political party, and the South has always been our most conservative region. But Southern conservatives were alienated from the GOP because of slavery and the Civil War. However much affinity they might have for Republicans on issues such as national defense or taxes, they were never going to formally join the party of Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> And so America had a historical anomaly, in which conservative Southerners found themselves permanent members of our more liberal political party, the Democrats. It took a great deal of compromise and political skill to keep Northern liberals and Southern conservatives sufficiently allied to win the White House and control of Congress.
> 
> The first cracks in this unholy alliance appeared as early as 1938. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated by the lack of support many Southern Democrats were giving to various New Deal programs, tried to purge some of them in the Democratic primaries. This effort failed miserably and Republicans made big gains thanks to Democratic disunity. The result further alienated Southern conservatives from Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”
> 
> 
> The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newrepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _




"conservative" ??????


What lever did the racists pull in the South???


It didn't say 'conservatvie,' did it, you lying low-life.

It simply said 'Democrat.'




Let's review some of the history you seem to have missed in government school:

1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.

2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.

3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.

4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.

5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years – American Free Press

6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.

7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.

8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.

10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Interesting article that touches upon this issue:
> 
> _To belabor the obvious, the Republican Party has always been our more conservative political party, and the South has always been our most conservative region. But Southern conservatives were alienated from the GOP because of slavery and the Civil War. However much affinity they might have for Republicans on issues such as national defense or taxes, they were never going to formally join the party of Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> And so America had a historical anomaly, in which conservative Southerners found themselves permanent members of our more liberal political party, the Democrats. It took a great deal of compromise and political skill to keep Northern liberals and Southern conservatives sufficiently allied to win the White House and control of Congress.
> 
> The first cracks in this unholy alliance appeared as early as 1938. Franklin Roosevelt, irritated by the lack of support many Southern Democrats were giving to various New Deal programs, tried to purge some of them in the Democratic primaries. This effort failed miserably and Republicans made big gains thanks to Democratic disunity. The result further alienated Southern conservatives from Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Western Origins of the “Southern Strategy”
> 
> 
> The untold story of the ideological realignment that upended the nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newrepublic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _





There was no "Southern Strategy," dope.

It's one more of the endless lies you swallow whole.



Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
*“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’*

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, Democrats nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights [1946-1965], giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the Democratic Solid South; following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (formerly a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use coded appeals to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is tainted by a continuous reliance on that same strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.

It’s true that Nixon, like Republicans as far back as TR, had the dream of adding white Southern support to his coalition, and dedicated a campaign strategy to doing so. And it’s true that the South has, broadly speaking, been far more Republican since the late 60s than it was before.




*But the reality is quite different from the myth.*

At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used *the race card* to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home.
*
The truth, … is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, *… What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and *the Democrats’ use of racial issues*. In other words, *if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers*. “ The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> "conservative" ??????
> 
> 
> What lever did the racists pull in the South???
> 
> 
> It didn't say 'conservatvie,' did it, you lying low-life.
> 
> It simply said 'Democrat.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review some of the history you seem to have missed in government school:
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years – American Free Press
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.



Your meltdown is noted.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> There was no "Southern Strategy," dope.
> 
> It's one more of the endless lies you swallow whole.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
> *“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’*
> 
> “Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, Democrats nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights [1946-1965], giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the Democratic Solid South; following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (formerly a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use coded appeals to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is tainted by a continuous reliance on that same strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.
> 
> It’s true that Nixon, like Republicans as far back as TR, had the dream of adding white Southern support to his coalition, and dedicated a campaign strategy to doing so. And it’s true that the South has, broadly speaking, been far more Republican since the late 60s than it was before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But the reality is quite different from the myth.*
> 
> At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used *the race card* to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home.
> 
> *The truth, … is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, *… What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and *the Democrats’ use of racial issues*. In other words, *if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers*. “ The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority



Look up Barry Goldwater Operation Dixie.

Learn something.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Your meltdown is noted.




Unfortunately, the truth isn't, at least not by you.

You're simply too stupid.

Bet you hear that a lot, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Look up Barry Goldwater Operation Dixie.
> 
> Learn something.




Goldwater, a true civil rights warrior.

Watch this:

"...a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. *Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax.* His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.



You're truly an imbecile, aren't you.

And a perfect Democrat supporter.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Look up Barry Goldwater Operation Dixie.
> 
> Learn something.






“*The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement*….
Nixon campaigned on *a strong anti-communist, law and order platform.* While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’”
"Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203





”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is *supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.*
They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, _Mugged_



This was Nixon’s “silent majority,” *the ordinary Americans* whom Nixon said worked hard and played by the rules and didn’t complain or set fire to anything and, precisely for this reason, had been ignored and even reviled by the Democratic Party.”
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness





Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as *good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, *and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.



Of course, you're still a racist.....er, Democrat, huh?





That's right.....there was no 'Southern Strategy.'


----------



## Synthaholic

Mushroom said:


> Did I say a thing about "blacks"?



OK, then which legislation in the 1960s were the ones that "drove conservatives out"?


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> How about we leave the decision up to our individual readers....m'kay???


My 'Location' has never been more accurate.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> Unfortunately, the truth isn't, at least not by you.
> 
> You're simply too stupid.
> 
> Bet you hear that a lot, huh?



Thats risible coming from a partisan hack.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> “*The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement*….
> Nixon campaigned on *a strong anti-communist, law and order platform.* While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’”
> "Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is *supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.*
> They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.
> 
> The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
> Coulter, _Mugged_
> 
> 
> 
> This was Nixon’s “silent majority,” *the ordinary Americans* whom Nixon said worked hard and played by the rules and didn’t complain or set fire to anything and, precisely for this reason, had been ignored and even reviled by the Democratic Party.”
> The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?
> 
> They behaved as *good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, *and the racist voters aged out....and died.
> 
> Rectitude and Republicans won out.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're still a racist.....er, Democrat, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right.....there was no 'Southern Strategy.'



Defection noted.

Dismissed


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Thats risible coming from a partisan hack.




Brilliant response to my linked, sourced and documented posts.

Without total morons....you.....the Democrats would never win an election.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Defection noted.
> 
> Dismissed




It was proof you are a moron.....no wonder you ignored it.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> It was proof you are a moron.....no wonder you ignored it.



Do you know what Operation Dixie is?


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> Brilliant response to my linked, sourced and documented posts.
> 
> Without total morons....you.....the Democrats would never win an election.



Your sources are nothing but bias opinions that support your politics.

See how that works.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Do you know what Operation Dixie is?




I totally destroyed both of your posts.

More where that came from.



Jets said:


> Your sources are nothing but bias opinions that support your politics.
> 
> See how that works.





BTW.....how many of the more recent lies did you swallow whole???


Democrats lie about everything….on what basis would any of their fabricated data be considered valid???
Here the prism through which every Democrat pronouncement should be viewed: First collusion, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia, Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction. Racist, Racist, Racist, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Recession, Recession, Recession, Emoluments, 25th amendment, “HandsUpDon’tShoot,”Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the Kavanaugh hoax, the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ *General Flynn perjury trap*, no evidence of voter fraud in the stolen election.....and “More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son."



Don’t forget the Democrats told you that Trump was colluding with Russia…and that wasn’t true. They also told you that so was Naval Academy grad Carter Page and so was George Papadopoulos and so was General Michael Flynn, a three star general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency….and all of that was a lie. How stupid must one be to keep believing what they say?
...and, and that ‘armed insurrection’ that never occurred, and AOC lying about her near-death experience in the Capitol Riots.....when she wasn't even in the Capitol. And, of course the 275 Democrat inspired riots were ‘mostly peaceful.’

And that Biden voters as agents provocateur weren't behind the Capitol Riot.....and that Pelosi knew and refused to allow extra security. They lie about everything.......yet Democrat voters are, ready to swallow the next lie.

And that the Wuhan Red Death did not come from a Chinese Communist lab that got its funding via Dr. Fauci, and its purpose was to remove Trump….

FakeStories: Three years of Russian Collusion stories; altering documents at the DoJ and FBI to railroad political opponents; the state media burying the Hunter Biden Scandal what with Joe getting 10% of the bribes; stories about Kavanaugh rape parties, and Covington Catholic School; Carter Page working for Russia when he was actually working for the CIA….where were those ‘fact checkers’? The great lie that there was an ‘insurrection’ January 6th. The lie that it was Republicans who wanted to defund the police. The lie that Critical Race Theory wasn’t being ta,00ught. The lie that 600,000 died from the Wuhan Red Death.
What should you do when* they lied to you at least these 30 times already???????????

Democrats claimed it was Republicans who demanded defunding the police, AOC claimed ten people were killed Jan6th, Ilhan Omar blames the police for crime, they claimed that CRT wasn’t being taught in government school, men can become pregnant, and MAGA fans attacked Jussie Smollett,….*


Brett Kavanaugh — Serial Rapist
President Michael Avenatti
The Covington KKKids Hoax
Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
George Zimmerman
Mostly Peaceful Black Lives Matter Riots
The Russia Collusion Hoax
Antifa Stormed the Beaches on D-Day
Cuomo (D-NY): King of Coronavirus Competence
The Clearing of Lafayette Square Hoax
The Lab Leak Theory Has Been Debunked Hoax
The Russians Are Behind Hunter’s Laptop Hoax
The Russian Bounty Hoax
The Capitol Police Officer Killed with a Fire Extinguisher Hoax
The Very Fine People Hoax
Men Can Magically Transform into Women
And *on* and *on* and *on*…
…what is the point of watching any corporate media outlet? All they do is lie. Even if you are an NPR wine mom, you do not want to be serially lied to.
The era of corporate media influence is ending thanks to the over the top bias, and that should be good for the future. Americans are rebelling against these exposed frauds, and 2022 should be a turning point."
Mark Simone 710







Here's your new avi:


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> I totally destroyed both of your posts.
> 
> More where that came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....how many of the more recent lies did you swallow whole???
> 
> 
> Democrats lie about everything….on what basis would any of their fabricated data be considered valid???
> Here the prism through which every Democrat pronouncement should be viewed: First collusion, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia, Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction. Racist, Racist, Racist, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Recession, Recession, Recession, Emoluments, 25th amendment, “HandsUpDon’tShoot,”Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the Kavanaugh hoax, the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ *General Flynn perjury trap*, no evidence of voter fraud in the stolen election.....and “More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son."
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t forget the Democrats told you that Trump was colluding with Russia…and that wasn’t true. They also told you that so was Naval Academy grad Carter Page and so was George Papadopoulos and so was General Michael Flynn, a three star general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency….and all of that was a lie. How stupid must one be to keep believing what they say?
> ...and, and that ‘armed insurrection’ that never occurred, and AOC lying about her near-death experience in the Capitol Riots.....when she wasn't even in the Capitol. And, of course the 275 Democrat inspired riots were ‘mostly peaceful.’
> 
> And that Biden voters as agents provocateur weren't behind the Capitol Riot.....and that Pelosi knew and refused to allow extra security. They lie about everything.......yet Democrat voters are, ready to swallow the next lie.
> 
> And that the Wuhan Red Death did not come from a Chinese Communist lab that got its funding via Dr. Fauci, and its purpose was to remove Trump….
> 
> FakeStories: Three years of Russian Collusion stories; altering documents at the DoJ and FBI to railroad political opponents; the state media burying the Hunter Biden Scandal what with Joe getting 10% of the bribes; stories about Kavanaugh rape parties, and Covington Catholic School; Carter Page working for Russia when he was actually working for the CIA….where were those ‘fact checkers’? The great lie that there was an ‘insurrection’ January 6th. The lie that it was Republicans who wanted to defund the police. The lie that Critical Race Theory wasn’t being ta,00ught. The lie that 600,000 died from the Wuhan Red Death.
> What should you do when* they lied to you at least these 30 times already???????????
> 
> Democrats claimed it was Republicans who demanded defunding the police, AOC claimed ten people were killed Jan6th, Ilhan Omar blames the police for crime, they claimed that CRT wasn’t being taught in government school, men can become pregnant, and MAGA fans attacked Jussie Smollett,….*
> 
> 
> Brett Kavanaugh — Serial Rapist
> President Michael Avenatti
> The Covington KKKids Hoax
> Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
> George Zimmerman
> Mostly Peaceful Black Lives Matter Riots
> The Russia Collusion Hoax
> Antifa Stormed the Beaches on D-Day
> Cuomo (D-NY): King of Coronavirus Competence
> The Clearing of Lafayette Square Hoax
> The Lab Leak Theory Has Been Debunked Hoax
> The Russians Are Behind Hunter’s Laptop Hoax
> The Russian Bounty Hoax
> The Capitol Police Officer Killed with a Fire Extinguisher Hoax
> The Very Fine People Hoax
> Men Can Magically Transform into Women
> And *on* and *on* and *on*…
> …what is the point of watching any corporate media outlet? All they do is lie. Even if you are an NPR wine mom, you do not want to be serially lied to.
> The era of corporate media influence is ending thanks to the over the top bias, and that should be good for the future. Americans are rebelling against these exposed frauds, and 2022 should be a turning point."
> Mark Simone 710
> 
> View attachment 591883
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your new avi:
> 
> View attachment 591884



How can you “destroy”  anything when you have no clue what Operation Dixie is. None of what you posted has anything to do with party realignment. 

Your insults prove nothing except nescience. 

Get back to me when you have an actual point to make.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> How can you “destroy”  anything when you have no clue what Operation Dixie is. None of what you posted has anything to do with party realignment.
> 
> Your insults prove nothing except nescience.
> 
> Get back to me when you have an actual point to make.




Let's leave it up to reader's of our individual post....how's that?


Now beat it, dunce.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's leave it up to reader's of our individual post....how's that?
> 
> 
> Now beat it, dunce.



Translation: You got nothing.

Anything else?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jets said:


> Translation: You got nothing.
> 
> Anything else?




Readers of my several linked, sourced and documnted posts will recognzie you as lying low-life scum.


----------



## Jets

PoliticalChic said:


> Readers of my several linked, sourced and documnted posts will recognzie you as lying low-life scum.



Pathetic.

Nothing but noisome insults when your diatribes are challenged.

Dismissed


----------



## surada

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. As the man said of the three holes in the ground, "Well, well, well."
> 
> 2. How unusual is it to have wingy support my OP????
> Wising up!!
> 
> 3. Yes...the meme that is so prevalent among the uninformed that Republicans were the segregationists, or that Dixiecrats switched parties to become Republicans....all lies to cover the disgraceful past of the Democrat Party....slavery and segregation.
> 
> 
> 4. "What happened was segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, switched loyalties to new Republicans..."
> 
> Oh, no.....
> 
> You were doing so well....sorry that I have to send you to the penalty box on this one.
> 
> Segregationist voters were Democrats, remained Democrats to the end.
> Why do you think the Democrat Senators in the OP continued to be re-elected???
> 
> 
> But if you ask nicely I might post an OP stating the facts of the segregationist vote, and who they voted for.
> 
> Wanna guess?
> Right!!! Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But....there is hope for you!



You didn't know Strom or FritzHollins, did you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

surada said:


> You didn't know Strom or FritzHollins, did you?




Can't you read????

Right in the OP.

Check your spelling, dope.


----------



## Mushroom

Synthaholic said:


> OK, then which legislation in the 1960s were the ones that "drove conservatives out"?



You are the one making that claim, so you are the one that has to prove it.

Do not make some claims, then expect me to prove them, that is not how this debate thing works.


----------

