Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[hadit]

Have today's southern conservatives changed from since the days they were slaveholders?

You meant Democrats, the Party of KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Tuskegee, Grand Kleagle Senate Majority Leader.

All from the South. Lincoln was a Repub, tell us of your profound respect for him and his actions to save the Union, including going to war against the South?

The only problem is the North freed the slaves and the South fought a war against this nation trying to stop such a thing. The history doesn't change just because you lie.

The south merely defended itself from Northern aggression. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He did it to impose the Morrill tariff.

History doesn't change because you lie.

Right, the confederate traitors didn't attack Ft Sumpter, the FEDERAL post, lol

Ft Sumter was their territory, so they had every right to kick out those Yankee carpet bagger scum.

And how many modern day Democrats do you know who still support the right of secession?

Well Obama did call Republicans "the enemy"

Yes, he did, and his entire administration has been characterized by open hostility to the opposition party. He only wants to "work with" them if they represent a true force capable of thwarting his plans.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The south merely defended itself from Northern aggression. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He did it to impose the Morrill tariff.

History doesn't change because you lie.

Right, the confederate traitors didn't attack Ft Sumpter, the FEDERAL post, lol

Ft Sumter was their territory, so they had every right to kick out those Yankee carpet bagger scum.

And how many modern day Democrats do you know who still support the right of secession?

Why do you have such a short attention span? Some democrats wanted Cook county aka Chicago to leave illinois, the baldy brothers threaten to leave if bush jr got elected again

So you think today's Democrats are much more the party that supports the idea of secession than are Republicans? I


lol, you're fucked.

Oh please just wait when a new republican is president again

 

[NYcarbineer]

It`s a nice gesture on the part of these posters to inform us that the Dems were the party of the klan and Republicans freed the slaves. That was 15 decades ago!

can you show us the GOP sponsored racist laws?

Overt racism is generally avoided nowadays.

Conservatives fought on the side of racism for decades, but they lost most of those battles to the progress of human civilization.

That sounds like a pretty good answer to the OP. No, conservatives of today are not the same as the dead conservatives of 175 years ago. If "conservatives" killed uppity blacks back then and champion them today (Clarence Thomas reference for those of you who were incarcerated in government schools), they can't be the same. By the same token, if "liberals" (and gasp, they were almost entirely driven by Christianity), championed blacks 175 years ago and do high tech lynching of uppity blacks today, they also can't be the same.

First of all I wasn't aware that Supreme Court nominees going before Senate hearings was a crime.

Explain that to us.

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

Are you aware Robert Bork is white?

 

[hadit]

can you show us the GOP sponsored racist laws?

Overt racism is generally avoided nowadays.

Conservatives fought on the side of racism for decades, but they lost most of those battles to the progress of human civilization.

That sounds like a pretty good answer to the OP. No, conservatives of today are not the same as the dead conservatives of 175 years ago. If "conservatives" killed uppity blacks back then and champion them today (Clarence Thomas reference for those of you who were incarcerated in government schools), they can't be the same. By the same token, if "liberals" (and gasp, they were almost entirely driven by Christianity), championed blacks 175 years ago and do high tech lynching of uppity blacks today, they also can't be the same.

First of all I wasn't aware that Supreme Court nominees going before Senate hearings was a crime.

Explain that to us.

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

Are you aware Robert Bork is white?

Yes, why is that significant?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What are you smoking crack? Reagan worked with tipper, Billy worked with Newt, Obama thinks he is king with a phone and a pen, he never wanted to and never will work with the republicans

 

[Dad2three]

Conservative Author Defends Confederacy, Wants South to Secede and Name New Country ‘Reagan’


Former Reagan administration aide and conservative columnist Douglas MacKinnon recently came out with a new book titled The Secessionist States of America: The Blueprint for Creation a Traditional Values Country…Now.


...Take this recent poll that showed less than half of the people living in Mississippi would support the United States against the Confederacy if a second Civil War was fought. Then there’s the League of the South which has put up billboards promoting secession.


Conservative Author Defends Confederacy Wants South to Secede and Name New Country Reagan

Few things would make me happier than getting these un-American fuckers the hell out of my country.

"...Take this recent poll that showed less than half of the people living in Mississippi would support the United States against the Confederacy if a second Civil War was fought. Then there’s the League of the South which has put up billboards promoting secession."

FUNNY RIGHT? All you have are ad homs? lol

Conservative Author Defends Confederacy, Wants South to Secede and Name New Country ‘Reagan’


Former Reagan administration aide and conservative columnist Douglas MacKinnon recently came out with a new book titled The Secessionist States of America: The Blueprint for Creation a Traditional Values Country…Now.


...Take this recent poll that showed less than half of the people living in Mississippi would support the United States against the Confederacy if a second Civil War was fought. Then there’s the League of the South which has put up billboards promoting secession.


Conservative Author Defends Confederacy Wants South to Secede and Name New Country Reagan

LOL at your source of ingnormation

 

[Wyatt earp]

Anyways, back to topic, I lived in Chicago area for 38 years and now 10 down here yes the South has changed, everyone is nice to each other, well around here they are.Chicago its not
everyone is segregated, Chicago it's not

Chicago is way more racist than this place is that's a fact.

 

[Dad2three]

There you go again. The democrats remained democrats. The republicans have never been for slavery. That is controlling people against their will, which is big government. Big government is Democrat policy. You democrats are still the same, only your methods have changed. Blacks are still on the Democrat plantation.

lol


Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?




The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag


It is true that most Republicans in 1964 held vastly more liberal positions on civil rights than Goldwater. This strikes [Kevin Williamson, the author of the National Review piece] as proof of the idiosyncratic and isolated quality of Goldwater's civil rights stance. What it actually shows is that conservatives had not yet gained control of the Republican Party.

But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically." More often conservatives argued on grounds of states' rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.

Conservatives Trying to Rewrite the History of Civil Rights Mother Jones








The Republican Party that championed civil rights in the mid-to-late 19th century all but abandoned the cause in the beginning of the 20th, as white America turned away from blacks, and left them to suffer at the hands of segregationists and lynch mobs. Key GOP politicians (like President Taft) embarked on a campaign to wash the Republican Party of its connection to blacks, in order to expand its constituency in the white South.



Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History Again

Bravo!

Rewriting history. Democrats started KKK. GOP freed the slaves.

You mean conservatives, mainly the South, today's GOP base? Yes, lol

It's a shame you have direct influence over three, dad2three.

Says Klown boy

 

[Dad2three]

that's a good point

when will the OP, PMS and the rest of the progbotch crew show us all the GOP sponsored racist laws

Not honest huh? It was the conservatives who did that, you know since the GOP/Dem party has switched several times the last 100+ years? Remember LIBERAL ABE LINCOLN AND TEDDY 'TRUST BUSTER' ROOSEVELT? lol

 

[bripat9643]

It`s a nice gesture on the part of these posters to inform us that the Dems were the party of the klan and Republicans freed the slaves. That was 15 decades ago!

can you show us the GOP sponsored racist laws?

Overt racism is generally avoided nowadays.

Conservatives fought on the side of racism for decades, but they lost most of those battles to the progress of human civilization.

That sounds like a pretty good answer to the OP. No, conservatives of today are not the same as the dead conservatives of 175 years ago. If "conservatives" killed uppity blacks back then and champion them today (Clarence Thomas reference for those of you who were incarcerated in government schools), they can't be the same. By the same token, if "liberals" (and gasp, they were almost entirely driven by Christianity), championed blacks 175 years ago and do high tech lynching of uppity blacks today, they also can't be the same.

First of all I wasn't aware that Supreme Court nominees going before Senate hearings was a crime.

Explain that to us.

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

I doubt any black was lynched simply for talking to a white woman.

Libturd morons like you have a hysterical understanding of what the South was like during segregation.

 

[Dad2three]

that's a good point

when will the OP, PMS and the rest of the progbotch crew show us all the GOP sponsored racist laws

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms Democrats Republicans

 

[squeeze berry]

that's a good point

when will the OP, PMS and the rest of the progbotch crew show us all the GOP sponsored racist laws

Not honest huh? It was the conservatives who did that, you know since the GOP/Dem party has switched several times the last 100+ years? Remember LIBERAL ABE LINCOLN AND TEDDY 'TRUST BUSTER' ROOSEVELT? lol

that wasn't even a good dodge, rather pathetic actually

 

[squeeze berry]

First of all I wasn't aware that Supreme Court nominees going before Senate hearings was a crime.

Explain that to us.

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

how many were killed for that?

then compare that the number of white women raped or killed every year by black males

That's immaterial. The point is that the murderous racism of the past is contained by society today, and trying to claim one group or another is "just like" some group from the past is apples and oranges.

immaterial my ass

rampant black crime rules the day and is hardly "contained"

seems like its just fine in your mind that white women are raped and murdered

you are sick

I care about people of all skin colors. Black women are raped and murdered just like white women are, and white men rape and murder just like black men do. Now, if you insist on focusing only on one combination, I question your ability to see the big picture and have to assume that you are only capable of outrage if the perpetrator of the crime is black.

you started on the race angle and I countered

selective memory

 

[squeeze berry]

that's a good point

when will the OP, PMS and the rest of the progbotch crew show us all the GOP sponsored racist laws

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms Democrats Republicans

didn't see anything about those racist GOP laws

just admit you cannot prove the GOPs racism

 

[rdean]

I'm curious. Since the Democratic Party is made up of the whites Republicans don't want, like gays, atheists, college professors, scientists, liberals and so on and the rest of the party are black, Hispanic, Asian and so on, who exactly are the "Liberal Elite"? Since we know there are also conservatives in the Democratic Party, called Blue Dogs, would they follow the "Liberal Elite"? Their voting pattern proves they tend to vote conservative. In fact, liberals seem to be a narrow part of the party.

Unlike Republicans. 90% white. Remember, Republicans recently voted the single Jew they had in congress and replaced him with "David Dukes without the baggage" making them 100% Christian. So who are these "Liberal Elite" and what holds them together as a "group"?

A member of the "liberal elite" that controls the GOP is jewish casino mogul and zionist Sheldon Adelson. He supports mass immigration and increased support for Israel, among other things . Another "liberal elite" who has been known to fund pro-immigration/pro-amnesty republicans is Mark Zuckerberg. Just two off the top of my head. I can list more.

Yes, The regular white people support the GOP, but the GOP never represents their interests, supporting immigration policies that undermine their base, and always trying to "diversify" as though, white interests are illegitmate.

White Americans have no political representation and dire need of it or they will become a minority in their own country.

Hilarious. The first time I heard the name Sheldon Abelson, I had to go look up who he was. I had no idea he was one of my "leaders".

Your "leader", what are you babbling on about? I am not American and I know who this GOP mega donor is. God you are so fucking stupid.

Look at what he wrote fool:

A member of the "liberal elite" that controls the GOP is jewish casino mogul and zionist Sheldon Adelson.

See? Liberal Elite that controls the GOP. God you're a tard.

I know what I wrote you idiot. Shel Adelson is a liberal and a GOP mega donor, his primary domestic policy point is to open immigration further by increasing legal immigration and allowing amnesty. I don't understand what is so hard to understand.

But then again, you are the idiot who didn't even know the major big money guy behind the GOP. Are you representative of the Democrat Party in general? Just dumb oblivious ****** lovers?

You said: I know what I wrote you idiot. Shel Adelson is a liberal and a GOP mega donor, his primary domestic policy point is to open immigration further by increasing legal immigration and allowing amnesty. I don't understand what is so hard to understand.

I suppose I should apologize for calling you a tard. No, you're a tard.

Liberals are not allowed in the Republican Party.

And the reason businessmen want immigration is clear. They need educated workers. Why do you think Rick Perry spends Texas taxpayer money to try to lure educated workers from other states? Remember, Texas cut 5 billion in education. The GOP in Texas think spending money educating their own is a waste of money. I can't say I disagree.

5 million reasons to restore 5.3 billion for Texas schools. - Raise Your Hand Texas



I can prove what I'm saying. But a tard doesn't know how. Why? Because they are a tard and are usually living on government assistance. Do you live on government assistance?

 

[hadit]

can you show us the GOP sponsored racist laws?

Overt racism is generally avoided nowadays.

Conservatives fought on the side of racism for decades, but they lost most of those battles to the progress of human civilization.

That sounds like a pretty good answer to the OP. No, conservatives of today are not the same as the dead conservatives of 175 years ago. If "conservatives" killed uppity blacks back then and champion them today (Clarence Thomas reference for those of you who were incarcerated in government schools), they can't be the same. By the same token, if "liberals" (and gasp, they were almost entirely driven by Christianity), championed blacks 175 years ago and do high tech lynching of uppity blacks today, they also can't be the same.

First of all I wasn't aware that Supreme Court nominees going before Senate hearings was a crime.

Explain that to us.

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

I doubt any black was lynched simply for talking to a white woman.

Libturd morons like you have a hysterical understanding of what the South was like during segregation.

Emmett Till was killed at 14 for whistling at a white woman. You could do a little research. Funny, I'm never called liberal.

 

[hadit]

Looking at or talking to a white woman wasn't a crime either, but that didn't save the lives of the black men killed for doing so. That's the whole point.

how many were killed for that?

then compare that the number of white women raped or killed every year by black males

That's immaterial. The point is that the murderous racism of the past is contained by society today, and trying to claim one group or another is "just like" some group from the past is apples and oranges.

immaterial my ass

rampant black crime rules the day and is hardly "contained"

seems like its just fine in your mind that white women are raped and murdered

you are sick

I care about people of all skin colors. Black women are raped and murdered just like white women are, and white men rape and murder just like black men do. Now, if you insist on focusing only on one combination, I question your ability to see the big picture and have to assume that you are only capable of outrage if the perpetrator of the crime is black.

you started on the race angle and I countered

selective memory

You thought I was sick for not caring about white women getting raped and murdered. Not real good on reality, are you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

that's a good point

when will the OP, PMS and the rest of the progbotch crew show us all the GOP sponsored racist laws

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms Democrats Republicans

The Democrat Party was the Segregation and KKK Party, then when FDR came they because the Eugenics and Tuskegee and Grand Kleagle Senate Majority Leader Party

Meet the new Boss, same as the Old Boss.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals truly are double talking ignorant hypocritical morons. Especially the op.

 

[jasonnfree]

. ... snip...reading the threads on these forums and any intelligent person soon finds out who the racists are and why Blacks continue voting Democrat. You say Republicans have never been fo

Racists like you, for example.

How am I racist?