# How did the party of Lincoln (GOP) end up being the Confederate Party



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.

But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.  All through the south, Republicans whites look fondly of the days when they were confederates.

------------------------------------------

The ceremonies became a celebration of the Confederacy with veterans parading in full uniforms, songs, flowers and a “benediction or eulogy about the so-called Lost Cause.” The events, she said, were carefully advertised as “mourning” during Reconstruction because people knew the activities were bordering on treason.

“It is a way to sustain an identification as a Confederate. It’s a way to sustain your southern identity and to continue to resist the federal government. Even though there is no longer a Confederate army, even though there is no longer a Confederate government. These are very much places where what I call a Confederate identity, is perpetuated,” Janney said.
Southern states observe Confederate Memorial Day

---------------------------------------------

Reconstruction and the Formerly Enslaved, Freedom's Story, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center
But how could the guarantees of citizenship be extended to blacks when states had traditionally been the guarantors of rights and the former states of the Confederacy were now controlled by white southerners who championed white supremacy?

-----------------------------------------------

What States Celebrate Confederate Holidays? Alabama Rep. Alvin Holmes Wants Them Eliminated In Alabama, Seeks Bill

--------------------------------------------------------
Here is a fairly current map of the US politically.  Forget the western red states.  Back at the beginning of the Civil War, they were territories and not states and even today, they are very sparsely populated.  The vast majority of the GOP lives in the old Confederate States.






Now look at the map from 1860.  Notice all the red states are GOP and all the Blue states are Democratic?  The exact opposite of how those states are politically represented today.





So these are all the facts.  How things were and how things are.  

It's time for USMB Republicans to explain how they ended slavery.
Why are Lincoln's GOP states now mostly Democratic.  
How the southern  Democratic States became all Republican.
Why would Republicans who ended slavery want to fly the Confederate Flag and not the US Flag.
Democrats' Views on Confederate Flag Increasingly Negative
Did the populations exchange places or did the political parties change places.
Let it make sense from the Republicans at the USMB.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 17, 2015)

Slow day Deanie boy??   .....


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 17, 2015)

It didn't bed wetter. The democrook party has blacks on a new plantation along with every other minority and whites who are dependent on meager rations but at least they don't have to do anything more than show up at the voting booth.

The sick sociopath fucks that libturds like you vote for has turned "low income housing" into human hog farms.


----------



## Boss (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.



He says this, then goes on to piece together a montage of false assumptions and erroneous characterizations complete with graphics and maps. I was prepared to review some evidence but all I got was pablum. There's not even anything there to refute... it's all speculative idiocy. 

Here's what I take away from this thread and what redan might as well have posted: 

Democrats have absolutely nothing to run on in 2016. Their policies have failed across the board for the past 8 years and there is no way they can defend them anymore. So they have decided to try and win this election by smearing the Republican party. They will go out there and post threads arguing the Republicans are racists, homophobes, xenophobes, bigots, zealots... people who want to bring back slavery and actively support the Confederacy... whatever it takes!


----------



## regent (Dec 17, 2015)

The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?


----------



## Boss (Dec 17, 2015)

regent said:


> The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?



This is just sheer idiocy. Did you "learn" this from a left-wing blog or something? 

Lincoln was very much a conservative. The first real modern liberal president was Woodrow Wilson, one of the most racist presidents in history and a Democrat.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Dec 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.
> ...


Republicans are running on Benghazi and scary ISIS.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 17, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Yeah Boss Where you been?


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.
> ...


So this map:






and this map:






Are wrong?  Wow, amazing.
Perhaps you can prove your allegations.  I would love to learn how they are wrong.
So we need either an explanation with historical evidence or an apology.


----------



## regent (Dec 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?
> ...


The idea that Lincoln had more liberal traits than conservative occurred to me as I read Lincoln and of Lincoln and discovered that others also believed Lincoln  a liberal. There have also been a few books put out suggesting Lincoln was basically a liberal, which I have not read, but now might.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 17, 2015)

Red States (Repub strongholds) are comprised of dead beats. Fact.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?
> ...



He certainly wasn't a collectivist who sought to create a nanny state.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.
> 
> But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.  All through the south, Republicans whites look fondly of the days when they were confederates.
> 
> ...



It didn't, you're just lying as democrats do.


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> It didn't bed wetter. The democrook party has blacks on a new plantation along with every other minority and whites who are dependent on meager rations but at least they don't have to do anything more than show up at the voting booth.
> 
> The sick sociopath fucks that libturds like you vote for has turned "low income housing" into human hog farms.


That's how your delusion works.  Your kind can't understand "coalition party".  Blacks are an important block of the Democratic Party.  They have their own leaders.  One of them is president.  Hispanics are another block.  Gays another one.  Women's rights activists another one.

Republicans are 90% white and ignorant.  

Here's a good article on why they insist on remaining ignorant.  Why their states are poor.  Why they don't like education.

Are the 10 Poorest U.S. States Really Republican?


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.
> ...


Lying about what?  Be specific.


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


A nanny state southern whites benefit from more than any other group?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> Lying about what?  Be specific.



The the GOP is confederate.

You belong to the demagogue - sociopath party, lying is what you do, it's all you do.

Slander and libel are the tools you work with, the only ones in your belt.


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Lying about what?  Be specific.
> ...


So the confederacy freed the slaves?  What did the Union do?


----------



## Boss (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I didn't say the maps are wrong. I said your conjecture and speculation are unsupported with facts. The maps don't prove a damn thing you claim they prove. You stated that modern Conservatives identify with the Confederacy. That's what you need to prove and the maps simply don't prove that. Do you have anything besides your OPINION?


----------



## Boss (Dec 17, 2015)

regent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Well let me just say this... Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. So it is possible for someone to be both a Liberal ideologue and also be a Conservative. Bill Clinton and Zell Miller would be prime modern examples of Liberal Conservatives. 

Conservatism is fundamentally based on pragmatic decision making and problem solving.  _"If I can save the union by freeing all the slaves... none of the slaves.. some of the slaves... that's what I would do."_  Pragmatism over ideology exemplified. Lincoln was a thinker and he looked at all aspects of a problem to find the most pragmatic solutions after careful deliberation of all sides. 

Liberals LOVE attaching their ideological rhetoric to dead people. Jesus was a liberal... Lincoln was a liberal... our Founding Fathers were liberal... Ronald Reagan was a liberal!  Any dead person can be a liberal-- you just need to find the right quote or policy and then make the claim.


----------



## regent (Dec 17, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


We don't know what kind of nation Lincoln would have tried to create had he lived, All indications are, however, that Lincoln was people oriented, one that was concerned about their way of life, was it good or bad and could it be better. We also know that during Grant's term some Republicans formed a liberal Republican group but they didn't last long.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 17, 2015)

Ever hear of the "solid south"? The pro slavery faction of the democrat party survived long after the Civil War. The bi-polar left's favorite fantasy is that the democrat party which embraced segregation and the likes of former KKK member senator Robert Byrd for more than fifty years and tried to block the Civil Rights act were actually republicans in disguise. You almost gotta laugh that it is none other than the democrat party that insults 21st century Black people by claiming that they are unable to obtain something as basic as a photo I.D. Perhaps the most notorious example of old time democrat party racism was the time the left wing bigots in the media created a cartoon depicting Dr. Condie Rice as an insulting caricature of a slave when she was appointed Secretary of State during the Bush administration. Nobody ever apologized.


----------



## regent (Dec 17, 2015)

whitehall said:


> Ever hear of the "solid south"? The pro slavery faction of the democrat party survived long after the Civil War. The bi-polar left's favorite fantasy is that the democrat party which embraced segregation and the likes of former KKK member senator Robert Byrd for more than fifty years and tried to block the Civil Rights act were actually republicans in disguise. You almost gotta laugh that it is none other than the democrat party that insults 21st century Black people by claiming that they are unable to obtain something as basic as a photo I.D. Perhaps the most notorious example of old time democrat party racism was the time the left wing bigots in the media created a cartoon depicting Dr. Condie Rice as an insulting caricature of a slave when she was appointed Secretary of State during the Bush administration. Nobody ever apologized.


The solid south voted Democratic because it was the Republican party that was the party of Lincoln, but most of the solid south were conservative. So each election the south voted Democratic but that did not mean they shared the Democratic liberal beliefs. Still the Democrats wanted their votes no matter the beliefs and for the most part played down their differences. FDR's wife got involved but FDR less so. Then Truman desegregated the military and that was the beginning of the end of the solid south.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 17, 2015)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Ever hear of the "solid south"? The pro slavery faction of the democrat party survived long after the Civil War. The bi-polar left's favorite fantasy is that the democrat party which embraced segregation and the likes of former KKK member senator Robert Byrd for more than fifty years and tried to block the Civil Rights act were actually republicans in disguise. You almost gotta laugh that it is none other than the democrat party that insults 21st century Black people by claiming that they are unable to obtain something as basic as a photo I.D. Perhaps the most notorious example of old time democrat party racism was the time the left wing bigots in the media created a cartoon depicting Dr. Condie Rice as an insulting caricature of a slave when she was appointed Secretary of State during the Bush administration. Nobody ever apologized.
> ...


The "conservative" south is a myth created by the liberal media. Republicans realized that integration was the logical future of the south early in the 20th century but the angry democrat KKK controlled southern politics continued to support and vote for and maintain decades of progressive and liberal and even border line socialist politicians. FDR appointed a former KKK member to the supreme court who wrote the modern version of "separation of church and state" which was intended to limit Catholic education which was a threat to FDR and the KKK at the time.  Democrats voted for segregation and democrats supported the KKK and democrats voted for FDR and Truman and that took care of the 20th century.


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


So how come there are no liberals in the Republicans party?


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So the map from 1860 shows the entire north is Republican.
The same map shows the entire south is Democratic.

Then

The modern map shows

The entire South is Republican (used to be Democratic)

The heavily populated part of the north is either Democrat or split. (Used to be all Republican)

What does that tell you?????

And who is it calling for National Confederate day across the deep south?  Democrats?

You can't debate with "I refuse to see anything except what I want to".  That just looks stupid.  If you think it's Democrats calling for National Confederate day, prove it.


----------



## rdean (Dec 17, 2015)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


This one statement is tarded beyond belief:  The "conservative" south is a myth created by the liberal media. 

If it were the "liberal south", why would the "liberal media" call it conservative.  

You guys have such a determined ignorance, you make it too easy.  I bet from your statements, even many Republicans on the USMB think you guys are tards.


----------



## westwall (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.
> 
> But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.  All through the south, Republicans whites look fondly of the days when they were confederates.
> 
> ...














Ummm, it was Democrats who founded the KKK moron.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2015)

rdean said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



? Donald trump...

He is an old time Democrat liberal like FDR....


----------



## Boss (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Do you honestly not realize that people die, people move, times change, party's change platforms, societal culture changes, viewpoints change, and we don't live in a vacuum? You don't sound like a person who grasps those basic fundamentals. 

And who is calling for National Confederate Day?  ALL REPUBLICANS OF THE SOUTH?  Because, unless THAT is the case, you can't hold every Republican in the South responsible. That's simply applying a blatant and bigoted stereotype. Is THAT how your mind operates? Because that's what it's telling me.


----------



## Agit8r (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.
> 
> But today's GOP identifies with Confederates.  All through the south, Republicans whites look fondly of the days when they were confederates.
> 
> ...



Many of the redneck progeny forget that their forebears were also the victims of the Slave Power.

It is little wonder that being so ignorant, they are also greatly devoted to the modern slave power which the Citizens United decision helped create.


----------



## rdean (Dec 18, 2015)

westwall said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Today's Republicans love to go on about how they ended slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican.
> ...


Yea nit wit, back when the Democrats were the confederate party in the Deep South.  Don't be such a shit head.  No one can possibly be that ignorant all the time.

The Complete List of American Cities Where the KKK Is Known to Operate

The group, founded in 1865, has a long history of violence mainly targeted at African-Americans, Jews, immigrants and members of the LGBT community.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate groups, called the KKK "the most infamous — and oldest — of American hate groups." The KKK's website states that the organization's primary goal is to "stop White genocide." They write, "We simply believe that the United States of America was founded as a white Christian nation."

http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/kkk-helped-create-solid-gop-south-96090

*"Klan activism loosened entrenched party loyalties and directly contributed to the dealignment of white voters from the Democratic Party in the 1960s," writes a research team led by sociologist Rory McVeigh of the University of Notre Dame. "This initial untethering process was critical to the more durable subsequent realignment with the Republican Party."

"Klan activism loosened entrenched party loyalties and directly contributed to the dealignment of white voters from the Democratic Party in the 1960s."*
--------------------------------

Professors David Cunningham, Rory McVeigh, and Justin Farrell cite data from five presidential votes between 1960 and 2000 in the paper, published in the December issue of the _American Sociological Review_. Brandeis reported that it shows that KKK activity "played a significant role in shifting voters' political party allegiance in the South in the 1960s — from Democratic to Republican — and it continued to influence voters' activities 40 years later."

How the Ku Klux Klan Helped Republicans Win Voters in the US South | VICE News

----------------------------------------------------
Why ignorant right wingers who think schools are for snobs think they know more than academics who actually do research is staggering.  Their stupidity only matches their delusions.  Even the most tarded of tards knows the KKK would never vote for a coalition party like the Democrats.  They are white wing Republican through and through.

Only a total tool would constantly repeat "but the Democrats started the KKK, but the Democrats started the KKK, but the Democrats started the KKK" while completely ignoring the rest of history. Stupid shit.  Go learn something.  Fucking parrot.  What's wrong with you.


----------



## rdean (Dec 18, 2015)

How is it possible that today's Republicans think they aren't the Confederate Party?


----------



## Boss (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> How is it possible that today's Republicans think they aren't the Confederate Party?



The Confederate States of America was founded by *DEMOCRATS!*


----------



## rdean (Dec 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > How is it possible that today's Republicans think they aren't the Confederate Party?
> ...


You need to go to this link and explain your American History to these guys:

New Orleans Mayor PURGING City’s Confederate History Because IT’S OFFENSIVE | Page 9 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Let me know when you do.  It should be hilarious.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




Yea then why did the grand wizard of the KKK endorse OWS ?


Commentarama: KKK Grand Wizard Gives OWS Thumbs Up


----------



## Boss (Dec 18, 2015)

President Eulogizes Former Mentor--William Fulbright :  Memorial: Clinton calls the late Arkansan a lifelong student and teacher and credits him with making the world a better place.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton on Friday delivered the eulogy for former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright, who gave his aspiring protege his first taste of national politics and warned him against the arrogance of power.

Speaking to a well-attended memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral, Clinton remembered his one-time mentor as a lifelong student and teacher who established the scholarship program that bears his name and that gave tens of thousands of U.S. students the opportunity to learn about the world beyond America's shores.

"We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better," Clinton told the family and friends of the austere and scholarly former senator, who died of a stroke last week at the age of 89.

J. William Fulbright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fulbright signed The Southern Manifesto in opposition of the Supreme Court's historic 1954 _Brown v. Board of Education_ decision.[9]With other southern Democrats, Fulbright filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as voting against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.[10]

Southern Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The *Declaration of Constitutional Principles* (known informally as the *Southern Manifesto*) was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places.[1] The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Southern Democrats) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.[1] The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling _Brown v. Board of Education_, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. School segregation laws were some of the most enduring and best-known of the Jim Crow laws that characterized the American South and several northern states at the time.

^^^ Bill Clinton's professed "mentor" ...J. William Fulbright -- Segregationist.


----------



## rdean (Dec 18, 2015)

bear513 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You didn't bother reading you own fucking link?????????????????????????????????

Here, let me help you: 

These Wall Street banks are not the product of free enterprise, they are the product of crime." And lest you miss exactly who he's talking about, he adds: "Zionist owners of the predatory banks made more shekels while Americans have lost up to fifty percent of their savings." Well, at least he didn't say the Jews stabbed us in the back.

See?  It's about hating Jews.  Duh!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




I am not reading that blog, I just posted any old link because I remember they did.


----------



## rdean (Dec 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> President Eulogizes Former Mentor--William Fulbright :  Memorial: Clinton calls the late Arkansan a lifelong student and teacher and credits him with making the world a better place.
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Clinton on Friday delivered the eulogy for former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright, who gave his aspiring protege his first taste of national politics and warned him against the arrogance of power.
> 
> ...


There you go again.  19 50 fucking 4.  God dammit.  Talk about the Blacks joining the Democratic Party in the middle 60's.  Talk about why the GOP is 90% white, Christian and conservative today.  Talk about why Republicans at the USMB supports Confederates.  Talk about why the vast majority of the north was Republican, and the vast majority of the south was Democrat in 1860 and how those numbers reversed in the middle 1960's.   Obviously you keep trying to change the narrative.  

I'm sorry you feel so bad about your racist party that you have to reinvent history so you can justify being a Republican, but that's who you people are.  Deal with it, but don't lie about about it.  Not everyone has tard issues.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 18, 2015)

The Confederate party hasn't been around for about 150 years but it doesn't stop the modern ignorant left from trying to make a political issue about it. You almost gotta laugh when the radical left applauds grade school kids being forced to recite the chant that jihad terrorists use before their own bodies become shrapnel to kill the infidel but somehow the Confederate flag is the enemy.


----------



## Boss (Dec 18, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > President Eulogizes Former Mentor--William Fulbright :  Memorial: Clinton calls the late Arkansan a lifelong student and teacher and credits him with making the world a better place.
> ...



Fuck you, racist piece of shit. I don't have to talk to your racist ass about anything. Democrats promoted and upheld slavery for 150 years... started a Civil War over it... lost.. then upheld Jim Crow laws for another 100 years... stood in the schoolhouse door and defiantly refused to desegregate... hung their rebel flags in protest over their statehouses... were active members of the KKK... and then came up with the ingenious idea to enslave black people AGAIN by shackling them to government assistance for another 50 years as they paraded around patting themselves on the back. 

You've got a lot of fucking gall to be trying to rewrite history and turn republicans into the party of the confederacy when that is YOUR LEGACY!


----------



## Boss (Dec 18, 2015)

whitehall said:


> The Confederate party hasn't been around for about 150 years but it doesn't stop the modern ignorant left from trying to make a political issue about it. You almost gotta laugh when the radical left applauds grade school kids being forced to recite the chant that jihad terrorists use before their own bodies become shrapnel to kill the infidel but somehow the Confederate flag is the enemy.



There never has been a Confederate Party... only the DEMOCRAT party who formed the Confederacy. It's the same DEMOCRATS who upheld Jim Crow laws for 100 more years, then defiantly stood in the schoolhouse door and refused to accept desegregation.  DEMOCRAT party... not the Confederate Party.


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The Confederate party hasn't been around for about 150 years but it doesn't stop the modern ignorant left from trying to make a political issue about it. You almost gotta laugh when the radical left applauds grade school kids being forced to recite the chant that jihad terrorists use before their own bodies become shrapnel to kill the infidel but somehow the Confederate flag is the enemy.
> ...


It was hard for the Democrats to throw away all those solid south conservative votes, but finally the Democrats bit the bullet and began easing the conservatives out the door. Fortunately, for the conservatives, there was the Republican party waiting, arms outstretched in welcome. Is the transition now complete or will it take some more time for all southern conservatives to join the party of Lincoln?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Southern democrats became republicans during the civil rights era to fight desegregation.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Southern democrats became republicans during the civil rights era to fight desegregation.



 Totally nutz!


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Southern democrats became republicans during the civil rights era to fight desegregation.
> ...


To what other political party could conservatives turn, in their fight against Truman integrating the armed forces? They tried a third party and it didn't work so Republicans had little choice. The Republicans welcomed them and their votes. The end result was that the parties were more in tune with their members and caused confusion with some citizens, and apparently still does.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Southern democrats became republicans during the civil rights era to fight desegregation.
> ...


Maybe the ghost of Strom Thurman can shove dixiecrats up your ass for analysis.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Southern democrats became republicans during the civil rights era to fight desegregation.




A myth , Jimmy Carter won the south


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Only three turned the rest stayed.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...




Dixiecrats were DEMOCRATS not Republicans.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Three politicians, ok.  How many constituents?


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You can do it.  You can work out where those constituents took their votes.  I'll give you another 10-20 minutes.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Have no idea but the real theory is they wanted middle class manufacturing jobs and not work in the fields like their dads and grandfather's ... That's why they really started to vote republican and I have seen it first hand the 11 years I have been down here.

I have seen more racism and segeration when I lived in the chicago area for 38 years then I have ever down here.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Well, after George Wallace (Dixiecrat) unsuccessfully ran for President, he went back to be governor of Alabama for several more terms until his death and never changed from the Democratic Party. Lester Maddox (Dixiecrat) remained a Democrat governor of Georgia and never changed parties. Robert KKK Byrd was a senior Democrat Senator until he died and the Democrats spoke highly of him at his funeral. All of them were re-elected time and time again by huge margins of victory... so I assume their constituencies stuck by their side. J. William Fulbright (Dixiecrat) was Bill Clinton's mentor... we know where his constituents went.


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

We are mixing ideologies with political parties. The South changing political parties was not an overnight thing, it is probably still going on. In the south conservatives could still vote Democratic for their local politicians, and I would imagine many still do. In national politics it might be another story. As Democrats had to bite the bullet to give up the solid south Democratic vote many conservatives have yet to bite the bullet to vote Republican, the party of Lincoln.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

regent said:


> We are mixing ideologies with political parties. The South changing political parties was not an overnight thing, it is probably still going on. In the south conservatives could still vote Democratic for their local politicians, and I would imagine many still do. In national politics it might be another story. As Democrats had to bite the bullet to give up the solid south Democratic vote many conservatives have yet to bite the bullet to vote Republican, the party of Lincoln.



Well... the adult people who were alive during Civil Rights are mostly dead now because that was over 50 years ago... the Confederacy was 150 years ago. So "conservatives" are not some eternal entity that lives forever.... are they? 

We can also talk about the political platforms of the parties and how they have changed since the mid 60s.  Lots of differences there.  Today's modern Liberal would have been a Communist in 1960. They would have found virtually NO support from the general public. Back during the Civil War era, today's liberal would have been executed for sedition. Your actual political viewpoints didn't come into prominence in America until POST-Bill Clinton!


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

switched.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Social programs solidified this change everywhere in the country, but in the south it was racists trying to find a new home for the 1964 election.


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > We are mixing ideologies with political parties. The South changing political parties was not an overnight thing, it is probably still going on. In the south conservatives could still vote Democratic for their local politicians, and I would imagine many still do. In national politics it might be another story. As Democrats had to bite the bullet to give up the solid south Democratic vote many conservatives have yet to bite the bullet to vote Republican, the party of Lincoln.
> ...


Today's liberal would not have been a communist in 1960, although so labeled by many McCarthyites.  There are core values that go with liberalism and one must start with these to define liberalism. As conditions change the means to carry out these core values also change, and it is often these means that we use to define the ideologies. and use the  means as definitions.  Most college bookstores have booklets on defining and giving the history of liberalism and conservatism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

"I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" said no Republican ever. That was LBJ


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 19, 2015)

regent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Today's Liberals ARE Communists. There's no difference between CP-USA and the DNC

None


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> switched.








Ooo... what happened here?


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Or what about here???  (Note the yellow is the DIXIECRAT Democrats)


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

How about here??? Looks like the entire nation is racist!


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Ooopss.... LOOK OUT... They changed back!


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Uh oh.... All Racist Again!


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Back to being divided up all across the country....


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > We are mixing ideologies with political parties. The South changing political parties was not an overnight thing, it is probably still going on. In the south conservatives could still vote Democratic for their local politicians, and I would imagine many still do. In national politics it might be another story. As Democrats had to bite the bullet to give up the solid south Democratic vote many conservatives have yet to bite the bullet to vote Republican, the party of Lincoln.
> ...


  Liberals found support from the general public in the Sixties with the election of Kennedy and then Johnson. Liberalism formed this nation or as General MacArthur said: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
MacArthur said that as he prepared to run for president as a Republican.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

regent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



John Kennedy was a Conservative by today's standards. Especially his fiscal policies.


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you have to keep changing your definition of conservatism and liberalism to keep pace with your posts, you only show your lack of history.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

regent said:


> If you have to keep changing your definition of conservatism and liberalism to keep pace with your posts, you only show your lack of history.



I haven't changed anything. Conservatism is a philosophy, Liberalism is an ideology. You can be a Liberal AND a Conservative.  JFK and Bill Clinton were Liberal Conservatives. (That is Liberal ideologues with Conservative philosophy.)


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > If you have to keep changing your definition of conservatism and liberalism to keep pace with your posts, you only show your lack of history.
> ...


Maybe most of us are just liberal in some areas of life and conservative in other areas. But you might get one of those little college booklets on political ideologies rather than try to make everything fit into your beliefs, it has all been done over long periods of time by numerous scholars.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

regent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Again... Conservative is not an ideology, it is a philosophy. It can encompass any number of ideologies. That's why you have libertarian conservatives who are completely different than social conservatives and they are divided sharply on many issues. 

Conservatism is simply the opposite philosophy from Radicalism or Extremism. Liberal or Progressive is an ideology. Social Conservative is an ideology. Neo-conservatism is an ideology. Libertarian is an ideology. "Moderate" can be both an ideology and philosophy depending on context.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?


You're a total idiot.  Only the 1960-1968 electoral maps cover the black civil rights era.  All of the maps I posted and the dixiecrat map you posted show exactly what I said: Segregationists were democrats in 1960, republicans in '64 tried to go independent in '68 and melted into the GOP ever since.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?
> ...



We don't exist in a 1960s vacuum, dipshit. And NO they didn't "melt into the GOP ever since" because as the maps I showed indicate, they went back blue again, then red, then red and blue, back to red.  The maps constantly change with every election. All racists don't vote for republicans. All morons don't vote for democrats. People are all different, they think different ways and vote different ways... only a true stereotyping *BIGOT* thinks otherwise.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I was just kidding, but you are a simpleton.  It must be the public schools.  I'll break it down for you:

First, only 1960-68 relate to race relations in the US.  In 1960, segregationist white democrats cast ballots for some guy who wasn't even running, just so they wouldn't have to vote for a yankee black sympathiser.  The next cycle they broke party and voted R.  Kennedy got shot and killed.  Torn by about 100 years' stereotypical allegiance to the Dems, there was this dixiecrat effort in '68 for "conservative [about race] democrats".  In years following, this group took the R position re entitlements, etc.  

Can you guess where they are til today or do I have to chew that up for you too?

It's ok to be black and Republican, but you don't want to do so blindly.  Black people who only vote Democratic should know what their party was up to for the better half of last century, too.


----------



## Boss (Dec 19, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...




*revisonistclaptrap revisonistclaptrap revisonistclaptrap revisonistclaptrap revisonistclaptrap*


----------



## Programmer (Dec 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Everyone knows your history books were full of emojis and made up words.  It shows.


----------



## rdean (Dec 20, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...


He never had a history book.  Only those little pamphlets you find on the bus or the subway.


----------



## rdean (Dec 20, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" said no Republican ever. That was LBJ


That was alleged by a right wing reporter.  There is no evidence LBJ ever said that.


----------



## rdean (Dec 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?


If you don't believe the Republicans are concentrated in the Confederate South and Democrats concentrated on both coasts, then you are truly too ignorant for words.


----------



## Boss (Dec 20, 2015)

rdean said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If that load of bullshit is what is now in public school history books it's the best argument I've seen for getting rid of the Department of Education.


----------



## Boss (Dec 20, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?
> ...



Well I don't know who is concentrated where. I know that looking at red and blue on a map doesn't have a damn thing to do with racism or who wants to discriminate against minorities. And I've discovered that people who like to pull that kind of shit are usually the bigots and racists they decry.


----------



## rdean (Dec 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


A lot of "I don't know" and get rid of education.

Wow, you sound like you are in the running for "Republican of the Year".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 20, 2015)

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" said no Republican ever. That was LBJ
> ...



LBJ said ****** as many times as a Sunday preacher says Jesus

That's your Civil rights hero

He called the Civil Rights Bill, "the ****** bill"


----------



## Boss (Dec 20, 2015)

Programmer said:


> I'll break it down for you:
> 
> First, only 1960-68 relate to race relations in the US.



Let me break it down for you. jackwagon... when you start from THIS premise, we can pretty much tell why you are such a fucking bigot. Why in the hell would ANYONE accept that ONLY 1960-68 relate to race relations in the US?  Did prejudice and racism begin in 1960 and end in 1968? 



> In 1960, segregationist white democrats cast ballots for some guy who wasn't even running, just so they wouldn't have to vote for a yankee black sympathiser.



Hold on... In Alabama, the voters had to vote for individual electors. You didn't vote directly for president, you voted for their electors. Kennedy beat Nixon in Alabama 300k to 200k in the popular vote... that is who the people of my state voted for... Kennedy.  The electoral delegates are who decided to become undeclared. So now, we are talking about a very small group of influential people in the south. It had ZERO to do with "_yankee black sympathizer_"  ...that is rhetoric designed to be intentionally inflammatory because you are a race-baiting bigot. Kennedy would have swept the South in '60, some of his strongest support was in the South. 



> The next cycle they broke party and voted R. Kennedy got shot and killed. Torn by about 100 years' stereotypical allegiance to the Dems, there was this dixiecrat effort in '68 for "conservative [about race] democrats". In years following, this group took the R position re entitlements, etc.
> 
> Can you guess where they are til today or do I have to chew that up for you too?



This is also nonsense and devoid of reality. LBJ was no John Kennedy. Goldwater was the predecessor to Reagan in bringing the Conservative philosophy into the arena. He was not a segregationist as far as anything I ever knew... where are the books saying that he was? Wallace (a Democrat) was a segregationist and did try to run for President in 1968. Most of the people in my state supported him. But in 1964, he ran against LBJ for the Democrat nomination and lost. 

Alabama supported Goldwater the Republican. 

So you jump completely over this race and it's the most important one... 1964. That is when the issue of segregation vs. desegregation was fought in the DEMOCRAT party.  It was the DEMOCRAT party who had the "come to jesus" moment over which way to go. 

So in 1968, the defeated segregationists backed George Wallace running as an independent. He cost Humphrey the election and Nixon won, and this was the last of the Dixiecrats. 



> It's ok to be black and Republican, but you don't want to do so blindly. Black people who only vote Democratic should know what their party was up to for the better half of last century, too.



I only see ONE political party who has historically been "up to" anything with regard to black people.  The GOP is colorblind, they see people as people. It is the Democrats who need to divide us into racial groups. It's the Democrats who fall over themselves to pander.. or defend.. or favor on the basis of skin color.


----------



## Programmer (Dec 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Now you think that voting for pro-segregation republicans has nothing to do with racism?


----------



## Boss (Dec 20, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Now you think that voting for pro-segregation republicans has nothing to do with racism?



Who the hell was EVER a "pro-segregation republican"?


----------



## rdean (Dec 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Programmer said:
> 
> 
> > Now you think that voting for pro-segregation republicans has nothing to do with racism?
> ...


Every Republican after 1970 nit wit.

How the GOP Is Resegregating the South

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.

Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)
Decades of neglect set the stage for a gradual embrace of former segregationists, who had either left the Democratic Party, or has been ejected. The South’s shift to a Republican stronghold, the collapse of white support for the Democratic Party—all of these are part of the story.

It's Not Democrats or Republicans - It's Conservatives That are the Biggest Damn Problem  - Forward Progressives
It’s clear to anyone who even knows basic history about our political parties that they’ve changed drastically over time.  In fact, they’ve basically swapped sides.  This is an argument Republicans often use to make a lazy attempt to bash Democrats.  They’ll proudly profess that, “We’re the party of Lincoln!”  Then they’ll point to the racist history of the Democratic party. And they’re right.  Decades ago, Democrats were often the party associated with racism. But what’s also true is that was during a time when Democrats were supported by southern conservatives.  You know, the same southern conservatives who are now strongly Republican. 

Funny, your history is different than every actual historian in the world.  Don't you know that makes you a fool?  It's as ignorant as believe the world is only 6,000 years old and God put bones in the ground to show us what creatures on other planets look like.

And you are a fool.  A really stupid one.


----------



## Boss (Dec 20, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Programmer said:
> ...



Again... you've failed to show when this magic transformation took place. You say "after 1970" but where and when did the immaculate transformation happen?

EVERY Republican supported Civil Rights and some Democrats from the South supported it... like LBJ!  Again, the only place Civil Rights was an issue was* within the DEMOCRAT party.* And the Southern Democrats of the era who didn't support Civil Rights weren't like Strom, he was the only one who joined the Republican party. Wallace, except for the brief moment he ran for president, was a Democrat until the day he died. So was Lester Maddox and Robert Byrd. Who else besides Strom defected? ...So we KNOW what the segregationist Democrats would have done because they did it... they remained Democrats and began this fairy tale of an amazing "transformation" whereby both parties seemingly flip-flopped in the middle of the fucking night or something. 

You're spouting just blatant idiocy all over the place... you say "You know, the same southern conservatives who are now strongly Republican." Like they're the same people from 1964. Anyone who was even voting age back then would be pushing 70 today. Times have changed dude. Why do act like we are living in the past?


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The FACT that the GOP is 90% white and the Democrats are everyone else, proves beyond a doubt, you are an ignorant turd.


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2015)

rdean said:


> The FACT that the GOP is 90% white and the Democrats are everyone else, proves beyond a doubt, you are an ignorant turd.



Well, since LBJ showered black people with massive government benefits, they have largely supported Democrats. That's not because Republicans are racists. I would venture to say the majority of Democrats are probably still white... even with all the minorities. But you know, being WHITE doesn't mean someone is a racist. Just like surrounding yourself with black friends doesn't make you NOT a racist.


----------



## regent (Dec 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The FACT that the GOP is 90% white and the Democrats are everyone else, proves beyond a doubt, you are an ignorant turd.
> ...


Republicans showered the black people with the greatest gift, their freedom from slavery. Had the Republicans followed through with that start, blacks might never even considered voting Democratic. But  today the party that gave blacks their freedom doesn't get their votes. Why? What were the massive government benefits that LBJ showered on blacks?


----------



## Boss (Dec 21, 2015)

regent said:


> What were the massive government benefits that LBJ showered on blacks?



 Oh brother.... REALLY?


----------



## regent (Dec 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > What were the massive government benefits that LBJ showered on blacks?
> ...


OK, if that stumps you how about the other question, why are the Republicans not getting the black vote?


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > What were the massive government benefits that LBJ showered on blacks?
> ...


Yea, really.  If they had so much, why live in ghettos and go to shitty schools?


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



You've been giving them presents since 1964, you've not fixed their shitty schools yet? Why are they still living in poverty? Why are their unemployed youth worse off than ever? For 50 years, Democrats have promised and promised the black community that they stood for them... that's why blacks have historically supported Democrats... has nothing to do with Republicans being racist. 

In the wake of failed Democrat policies you have NO answer for why you've not done a damn thing to help black people in America. Every election, you trot out more of the same "carrot on a stick" bullshit to exploit them for their vote and you never deliver. And now, you've taken to calling the Republicans a bunch of racists when the history shows us who the true racists were. You have this far-fetched story about some amazing "transformation" to absolve yourselves from your past and to insinuate the true racists are the right. YOU are the problem, not the Republicans.


----------



## regent (Dec 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So is there a black problem in the United States? 
Is the Democratic response just to black people or to poor people?
If there is a problem, what has been the Republican response?


----------



## Boss (Dec 22, 2015)

regent said:


> So is there a black problem in the United States?
> Is the Democratic response just to black people or to poor people?
> If there is a problem, what has been the Republican response?



NO.. there is not a "black problem" anywhere except in the minds of the racist radical liberal who THINKS that way!  I live in the state of Alabama and I see normal everyday black people and white people getting along with each other just fine. Their kids go to school together, have friendships with each other, they go to the same gatherings and events, they attend the same churches, they exchange Christmas gifts, they help each other in times of need... there is very little (if any) animosity between them.  Now... are there SOME who this is NOT the case? Sure... there always WILL be! But the vast and overwhelming majority of society today are NOT RACISTS! 

Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them. That's not what this country is about... ALL men are created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator. We ALL have the capacity to be successful in a free enterprise, free market capitalist system.


----------



## regent (Dec 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So is there a black problem in the United States?
> ...


Well I'm glad Alabama is like that perhaps other areas are not? I grew up on the south side of Chicago and found it somewhat different.


----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

regent said:


> Well I'm glad Alabama is like that perhaps other areas are not? I grew up on the south side of Chicago and found it somewhat different.



I've traveled up north as well and it's breathtaking how racist people are in some places. I happen to think this has to do with the fact that "racism" has been historically scapegoated onto the South after the Civil War and Civil Rights. Northerners can justify their racist views by saying... well at least we're not as bad as THEM! Contrast that with Alabama where every school student from 5th grade up has studied the state's history every year. We learned about Dr. King and the march from Selma to Montgomery, we learned about Rosa Parks, we learned about Bull Conner and the riots in Birmingham.... it's ensconced in our state history. I think the generational effect has been that we are much more sensitive to this and aware of our own prejudices, determined and committed to overcome that terrible stigma. I think we might be one of the least racist states in America because of that. Still, a lot of people up north think of us as a bunch of racist rednecks driving around in our pickups with the rebel flag waving, looking for black people to lynch. It's just not the case here.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans quickly destroyed Lincoln's Republican party and replaced it with a conservative party. Was Lincoln a liberal?
> ...



Lincoln (along with the early Republican party) was absolutely a Liberal. Goes hand in hand with Abolition.  "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.

"All men are created Equal" is the quintessential Liberalist credo.


----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



In modern context maybe, but not necessarily in philosophical context of the time. Lincoln was very pragmatic in his approach to problem solving. He had worked for years on trying to solve the problem of slavery through bipartisan efforts and considering both sides of the issue. Even in the Civil War, he stated that he would leave slavery as it were if that would save the Union. From every indication, every problem Lincoln was ever faced with, he used pragmatic approaches gleaned from wisdom of history and experience... a hallmark of Conservative philosophy.

Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed. He definitely wasn't a radical liberal. Again, because Conservatism is philosophy and not ideology, you can be liberal AND conservative at the same time.

Now... _*All men are created equal*_ is certainly *NOT* a credo of modern liberals. Their policies are systemically geared toward selective groups of people who are not perceived as equal because they require some level of favoritism or advantage over others.

* "Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.*
Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson... also one of the most racist presidents in history.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What exactly are "far out liberal left wing" views?  How about a few examples?

Right wingers explaining what a liberal is, is always hilarious.  Hilarious and delusional.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So is there a black problem in the United States?
> ...


You said:  Republican Conservatives are completely all-inclusive. EVERY person matters! We don't have to break down society into little groups and pit them against each other. We don't have to single out this race or this minority to bestow favoritism on them.

Fucking hilarious.  Here, look at this:

A Groundbreaking Interracial Marriage
In doing so, it put an end to the last piece of state-sanctioned segregation in the country.
Yet for decades after the decision, many states left the unenforceable laws on the books — South Carolina did not remove its prohibitive clause until 1998, and Alabama held on to its ban until 2000.

---------------------------------

Get it?  Alabama, oh, such an inclusive state, had an anti interracial marriage ban on the books until 2000.  That's what comes from your type of ignorance.  





Shit for brains here it trying to say these states are all liberal Democrats who love the confederacy and all those lynchings were mean left wing liberals.  Yet, somehow, inexplicably, all those Democratic liberals moved north and now those same states are all conservative black loving whites who just want to defend confederate holidays because, they, um, tell us again.  Why are all these anti slavery white conservatives who love blacks defending a flag that's all about black slavery?

And I'm sure Alabama loves the gays just as much as it loves the blacks:

Alabama gay man severely beaten outside bar, but cops refuse to put anti-gay slurs in police report

Alabama Toughens Rules for Voting While Black


----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Well, the main one is that life can somehow be made "fair" for everybody. Or that the Federal government was established to give us shit and do things for us. Or that our Constitution is a "living document" that we can redefine as we please. That we can improve our health care system by turning it all over to government bureaucrats. That we can create jobs by castrating industry and commerce. That the poor can be made whole by destroying the wealthy. That we can tax our way to prosperity. That our courts are there to mete out social justice. 

None of these viewpoints were prevalent in 1860 America. If anyone had run for office speaking this nonsense they would have gotten virtually NO support.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit.  Fuck off Loser.

Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search

And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 23, 2015)




----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

rdean said:


> Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.
> 
> Republicans want to change the constitution - Google Search
> 
> And for your information dumbass, no one wants to change the constitution more than Republicans.



We've changed the Constitution many times, there is a process called Amendment ratification for that. Dummycrats don't bother with that effort, they just have the SCOTUS "interpret" it into the Constitution and move on. 

Don't tell me to fuck off when you asked me a question and I answered you. In 1860, you people would have been run out of this country if we didn't kill you first. You espouse the utter nonsense of Karl Marx and in 1860, no one in the North or South held those views.


----------



## paperview (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Now you resort to repeating the same old fucking lying shit. Fuck off Loser.
> ...


Um...

The conservative Southerns were quite vocal in saying the Northerns were socialists and communists even before 1860....in the previous presidential election, they railed about it, and said a Republican being elected would result in a "carnival of blood."


----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

paperview said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You'll have to show me some historical documentation of this. (Socialist/Commie part) 

As I said, virtually everyone in the country was conservative. There weren't any radical liberals. The closest thing to a "radical lib" you would have found would be the Quaker ministers who were preaching abolition. Isn't that ironic... the radical liberals were the bible thumpers! 

Marxism didn't become widely debated as a political ideology until well after the Civil War. It was still in it's infancy at the time and would have been dismissed as kooky. No one could have been elected spouting that nonsense... hell, until Obama, no one WAS elected spouting it. Wilson was a liberal but not a Marxist. FDR was a liberal but not a Marxist. LBJ was a liberal but not a Marxist.


----------



## paperview (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No.  The South castigated the North for being  socialistic, communist, and licentious.

*OCT 1856*, -- The New York Times, quoting a Richmond, VA paper, describing the Southern sentiments -- years before Lincoln took office, entitled: *
LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE*
*
"Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within, will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."*
*..





It goes on:*",...t*he division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity, licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."*
*
"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery.*"

*Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion
*


----------



## paperview (Dec 23, 2015)

Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Union ships in January of 1861. They continue:
*
"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...*

*





Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com

1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.*


----------



## Boss (Dec 23, 2015)

paperview said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



A single editorial in a single newspaper is not an entire political party or the views of their candidate. This is one faction hurling rhetoric at another... that's not someone running for office on the platform of Socialism. 

But things like this are used all the time to try and draw a false perception of the past. This is a militant liberal attempt to rewrite history and make Conservatives out to be the bad guys. Most intelligent people recognize it as propaganda. Kool-aid drinkers who want to believe in Liberal Utopia are easily fooled and misled.


----------



## regent (Dec 23, 2015)

As I remember history Karl Marx sent a letter  congratulating Lincoln on his reelection.


----------



## paperview (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm not about to drag all the speeches from the Southerners saying similar things, nor would you read them.  That was the sentiment of much of the South. 

They absolutely hated the Northerners for their liberalness,  "debauchery," and socialistic attitudes,  as they saw it. In many ways as they see it today.


----------



## paperview (Dec 23, 2015)

regent said:


> As I remember history Karl Marx sent a letter  congratulating Lincoln on his reelection.


 True.

*Marx's letter to Abraham Lincoln*


*Sir:*

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.  

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;

George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary."


----------



## regent (Dec 23, 2015)

I have talked with some southern business leaders and they seem anxious to change the image of the South. They pointed how few lynchings there have been in the last ten years and other signs of change. I almost felt sorry for them as they seemed sincere in their desire to change their section of the nation.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And yet, that's more evidence than you have ever shown about anything.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed.



Well ---- nnnnno.  Seven states seceded before he even took office, exactly because of their fear that he was going to wipe out slavery.  Had that impression not been in the air, those secessions wouldn't have started in December of 1860.




Boss said:


> Now... _*All men are created equal*_ is certainly *NOT* a credo of modern liberals.



I said "Liberalist".  Philosophies are not people, and no person is a pure representative of a single ideology.  But the sentiment is the whole basis of Liberalism  -- that power derives from the People, and not from an Aristocracy or a Church.  Unfortunately it was undeveloped enough in the time this country was founded that it could see the discrepancy between commoners and "royalty", but not between commoners and slaves.  That perspective was a continuous undercurrent that finally came to a head with Lincoln --- and the various secessions. 

The new (6 year old) Republican Party comprised basically two pre-existing factions: the disintegrating Whig Party and the Abolition Movement (the Whigs disintegrating because they could not come to a unified agreement on slavery).  Being the first President elected from that party (only the second one to run), Lincoln's election portended big changes, and everybody knew it.




Boss said:


> *Conservatives" at that time were Democrats.*
> Virtually EVERY politician of the time was Conservative. You couldn't get elected with far-out liberal left-wing views. The first true LIBERAL president was Woodrow Wilson...



Actually the first Liberal President would be.... George Washington.  That's what the Founders were expressing --- *Liberalism*.  That was their whole _point_.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 23, 2015)

Programmer said:


> switched.


They'll never accept it. I've posted those maps as have others. They choose to remain ignorant.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?


Not only are you ignorant, you've altered the maps.


----------



## regent (Dec 23, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Was abolition a "liberal" idea? Perhaps... but Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist and was perfectly content with leaving slavery where it already existed.
> ...


Perhaps General MacArthur got it right when he said:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
America is a liberal nation, too liberal for some and not liberal enough for others, but we began liberal and remain so.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" said no Republican ever. That was LBJ



Link, Frank?



No..... didn't think so.

How come you keep posting a bogus quote expecting different results?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> You got any more maps you wanna fucking post, moron?



I must admit, I don't think I've ever heard cartography described in quite that tone of voice.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 23, 2015)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" said no Republican ever. That was LBJ
> ...


To rewrite history. I'm not sure Frank is smart enough to know the truth.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I got Frank's quote right here, and he knows it:



CrusaderFrank said:


> LBJ "I'll have them ****** voting Republican for the next 200 years"



Farbicators always trip theyselves up.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 23, 2015)

rdean said:


> How did the party of Lincoln (GOP) end up being the Confederate Party



How did the party of Jefferson become America's Socialist Party?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > How did the party of Lincoln (GOP) end up being the Confederate Party
> ...



Uh -- the party of Jefferson doesn't exist any more.  Been gone about two centuries.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 23, 2015)

Only one party today wants to use skin color to determine who gets jobs and an education.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 23, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yeah, you're right about that


----------



## Pogo (Dec 23, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican Party" isn't related to either of the contemporary ones.  The terms were recycled.


----------



## WildBillKelsoe (Dec 23, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Red States (Repub strongholds) are comprised of dead beats. Fact.



They're the blackest states in the country.  What are you saying?  Black folks are dead beats?


----------



## regent (Dec 23, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Only one party today wants to use skin color to determine who gets jobs and an education.


Yes one party for years used skin color and lack of a good  education for years to deny decent jobs to some Americans, finally some of that had to be changed by laws. Schools in some, or many states, still do not offer the same educational opportunities to the poor as they do the wealthy.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 23, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



But he's still considered to be the father of the Democratic Party by today's party.


----------



## regent (Dec 24, 2015)

Jefferson our third president was the first liberal president. He replaced our second president, John Adams that served one term and that was the end of the first conservative party, the Federalists. John Quincy Adams our sixth president and son of John, ran as a National Republican, but was J.Q. a liberal or conservative?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 24, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



That's bullshit propaganda.  They're trying to make themselves older than they are, and probably more to the point trying to associate with Jefferson.

But they're not really related -- parties disintegrate (or at least, they used to) and the refugees of those parties _may _re-form with new coalitions, mixed with new blood, but that doesn't make them the same thing.  If that were the case, the Republican Party could trace itself back to the Whigs, on the basis that they absorbed many (but not all) of that party.

The Democratic Party begins with Jackson.  It's understandable that they'd rather be associated with Jefferson than Jackson as a starting point, but to try to extend it back to Jefferson is Revisionism.

Special Ed, on our own pages here, tries to do the same thing with the Republican Party, extending it in fact all the way to the same bogus origin point -- Jefferson.  That's Revisionism too.


----------



## Boss (Dec 24, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



BUT... It's ALSO revisionist to try and apply today's modern conservative and liberal labels to parties of the past. What it amounts to is trying to grab some kind of glory from the greats in history for your own party politics. Times have changed dramatically, people are way different and our viewpoints are different as well. We don't live in 1860 or 1790... we don't live in 1948 or 1964.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Yes, it surely is.  A lotta wags on this board pick some player from their "team" 100 or 150 years ago and try to come on as if they represent the same thing their "team" does now.  I keep crowing, political parties are simply machines to acquire and consolidate power, and to that end they will tell you the sky is blue and tell me the sky is green, if that happens to be what you and I want to hear, and next year if you and I reverse positions -- they will too. 

Even in our own lifetimes we can see shifts, e.g. the DP jettisoning its racists in the '60s, the RP infiltrated by religionists in the '70s.


----------



## regent (Dec 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


Liberalism and conservatism have core values that are consistent. The means to achieve those core values do change however, and often the means to achieve are used as  core values, For example, the size of government is often cited as a core value but it is not, it can change in a few campaigns. Did Reagan reduce the size of government, Nixon and other that campaigned on the size of government. Unfortunately these tests to determine one's ideology often mix the means and core values and are indicative only for that period in time. But most of us are hybrids in that we are both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. A financial conservative might be a social liberal, in that he believes everyone should earn their way but recognizes some cannot.


----------



## Boss (Dec 26, 2015)

regent said:


> Liberalism and conservatism have core values that are consistent. The means to achieve those core values do change however, and often the means to achieve are used as core values, For example, the size of government is often cited as a core value but it is not, it can change in a few campaigns. Did Reagan reduce the size of government, Nixon and other that campaigned on the size of government. Unfortunately these tests to determine one's ideology often mix the means and core values and are indicative only for that period in time. But most of us are hybrids in that we are both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. A financial conservative might be a social liberal, in that he believes everyone should earn their way but recognizes some cannot.



And this is precisely where people become confused. Conservatism is not an ideology and Liberalism is. Conservatism is an overarching philosophy of which many ideologies can be encompassed. This is why it's easy, at first blush, to view Reagan as conflicting with "core values" of conservatism. When you dig deeper, you discover that his actions were rooted in pragmatism and a more moderate approach than the radical alternative.


----------

