Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Spoonman understands that communism and Russian traditional imperialism drove the USSR desire to put as much conquered territory as possible between Mother Russia and the West.
a major flaw in FDR's policy don't you think? How could he have missed this and allowed the perfect situation for stalin's land grab to exist? He gave him the situation which would be the kick off point for future wars, future loss of American lives, the start of the cold war, countless dollars and time spent trying to combat it. that simple oversight of communism and Russian traditional imperialism cost the rest of the world a countless sum. one of the major failures in modern political policies.
"Land grab" seems so antiseptic....almost pastoral.
Do you think Jakal is aware of the 22,000 shot, stabbed, hung, suffocated Polish army officers the Russians killed in the Katyn Forest?
Katyn massacre
Katyn massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is so so so much Jakal doesn't know.
As he is pretty much a fool....maybe he doesn't know about it.
Of course, his ilk is exactly what the Left looks for.
The Russians, of course, blamed the Nazis.....and the FDR administration, in cycles, turned a blind eye, and agreed that the Nazis did it.
Stalin did it.....FDR's Bff.
I'm not trying to point out that Republicans were any more racist than Democrats. However, beginning in 1960's the GOP got a big boost when southerns began voting Republican, first in national elections and then state and local elections."In fact their support of blacks cost them [Democrats] the South."
Utter nonsense.
No doubt you learned same at the feet of a Liberal school marm.
1. Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- its been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats cant get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
a. They tell themselves its because they wont stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners dont like them.
b. The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.
2. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years right up to 1994.
"GOP Poised to Reap Redistricting Rewards" by Michael Barone on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
a. Between 48 and 88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism .certainly not race!
b. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged segregationist states into the 90s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carters 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
Covered fully in "Mugged," Coulter.
Hint:
Know why they were called 'Dixiecrats,' not 'Republicrats' or 'Dixiecans'?
Did you know that Senate Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill the Republicans offered?
True story.
Too late for you to learn?
The shift from Democrat to Republican in the South began in the mid 1960s with the civil rights act, first presidential elections, then gubernatorial elections and finally the legislatures. However it all began with the passage of the civil rights bill.
In presidential elections:
After reconstruction and prior to the introduction of the civil rights act, the southern states voted for Democrat presidential candidates in 95% of the elections. In fact several states, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina had never voted Republican after reconstruction until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
After the introduction of the civil rights bill, almost every southern state voted Republican in presidential elections with the exception of the Carter and Clinton election. Alabama and Mississippi have never voted for a Democrat presidential candidate since the civil rights bill was passed.
List of United States presidential election results by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In gubernatorial elections, the South started turning to Republicans in 1966 with Republican wins in Arkansas and Florida, followed by Kentucky in 1967, and North Carolina in 1973. Beginning in 1980, the remainder of the Southern states began electing a steady stream of Republican governors.
Solid South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the 1964 act. He did so on libertarian grounds, opposed to the acts restrictions on private property which he believed beyond the Congresss powers under the commerce clause. Five others supported the partys presidential nominee.
a. Goldwater went on to win five southern states in 1964: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. But he lost eight.
b. Democrats build the southern strategy tale on the fact that the same states voted for Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in 1948 (less Georgia).
c. Except that Nixon and Reagan lost, or almost lost the same states in 68 and 80
d. And Jimmy Carter and Clinton did pretty well in those states in 76 and 92.
e. And the Goldwater states went right back to voting Democrat for decades
2. "I'm not trying to point out that Republicans were any more racist than Democrats."
That's not strong enough.
The implication is that they were equally 'racist.'
Not true....the Democrats were the racist party.....the KKK was their military wing...and I'd be happy to document same.
So if Republicans were racists and got racist southerners to vote for them, how to explain this: Republicans always did best in the southern states that Goldwater lost, which happened to be the same ones Republicans had been winning with some regularity since 1928.
a. In 28, 52, 56, and 60, Republicans generally won Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky and sometimes North Carolina or Louisiana. Did you notice that those years were before 1964, the so-called 'turning point'?
b. Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallaces supporters on election day. Nixon got none of em. When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey. The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy - Pat Buchanan - Page 1
c. In 76, Carter swept the South. Was Carter appealing to bigots .or is that only the case when Republicans win the South?
3. Reagan lost or barely won the Goldwater states but Reagan won among young southern voters- but lost among seniors, those who has voted in 48 and 64. That meant that the segregationists never abandoned the Democrats: eventually they died or were outvoted by younger voters. Nope after Thurmonds run, the Dixiecrats went right back to voting for Democrats for another half century.
4. In writing about McGovern and Wallace, liberal luminary, Arthur Schlesinger, actually referred to Wallace voters as responding to their candidates integrity! The primaries themselves, especially the success of McGovern and Wallace, provide the best evidence for the proposition that voters in 1972 care less about a candidate's stand on particular issues than they do about the candidate's integrity, How McGovern Will Win
a. McGovern gave a tip-of-the-hat to the segregationist Wallace in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. That was the exact midpoint between Goldwater and Reagan. So what of the imaginary southern strategy where the Republicans were supposed to have a plan to appeal to racists?
b. Democrat McGovern: And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stand up and speak out for all of those who see you as their champion.
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN
Covered pretty fully in chapter 12 if "Mugged," Coulter
And....I'd be more than happy...in fact ecstatic .....to remind of the racist history of Bill Clinton.
Just say the word.
I'm not trying to point out that Republicans were any more racist than Democrats. However, beginning in 1960's the GOP got a big boost when southerns began voting Republican, first in national elections and then state and local elections.
The shift from Democrat to Republican in the South began in the mid 1960s with the civil rights act, first presidential elections, then gubernatorial elections and finally the legislatures. However it all began with the passage of the civil rights bill.
In presidential elections:
After reconstruction and prior to the introduction of the civil rights act, the southern states voted for Democrat presidential candidates in 95% of the elections. In fact several states, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina had never voted Republican after reconstruction until the Civil Rights Act was passed.
After the introduction of the civil rights bill, almost every southern state voted Republican in presidential elections with the exception of the Carter and Clinton election. Alabama and Mississippi have never voted for a Democrat presidential candidate since the civil rights bill was passed.
List of United States presidential election results by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In gubernatorial elections, the South started turning to Republicans in 1966 with Republican wins in Arkansas and Florida, followed by Kentucky in 1967, and North Carolina in 1973. Beginning in 1980, the remainder of the Southern states began electing a steady stream of Republican governors.
Solid South - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the 1964 act. He did so on libertarian grounds, opposed to the acts restrictions on private property which he believed beyond the Congresss powers under the commerce clause. Five others supported the partys presidential nominee.
a. Goldwater went on to win five southern states in 1964: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. But he lost eight.
b. Democrats build the southern strategy tale on the fact that the same states voted for Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in 1948 (less Georgia).
c. Except that Nixon and Reagan lost, or almost lost the same states in 68 and 80
d. And Jimmy Carter and Clinton did pretty well in those states in 76 and 92.
e. And the Goldwater states went right back to voting Democrat for decades
2. "I'm not trying to point out that Republicans were any more racist than Democrats."
That's not strong enough.
The implication is that they were equally 'racist.'
Not true....the Democrats were the racist party.....the KKK was their military wing...and I'd be happy to document same.
So if Republicans were racists and got racist southerners to vote for them, how to explain this: Republicans always did best in the southern states that Goldwater lost, which happened to be the same ones Republicans had been winning with some regularity since 1928.
a. In 28, 52, 56, and 60, Republicans generally won Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky and sometimes North Carolina or Louisiana. Did you notice that those years were before 1964, the so-called 'turning point'?
b. Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallaces supporters on election day. Nixon got none of em. When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey. The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy - Pat Buchanan - Page 1
c. In 76, Carter swept the South. Was Carter appealing to bigots .or is that only the case when Republicans win the South?
3. Reagan lost or barely won the Goldwater states but Reagan won among young southern voters- but lost among seniors, those who has voted in 48 and 64. That meant that the segregationists never abandoned the Democrats: eventually they died or were outvoted by younger voters. Nope after Thurmonds run, the Dixiecrats went right back to voting for Democrats for another half century.
4. In writing about McGovern and Wallace, liberal luminary, Arthur Schlesinger, actually referred to Wallace voters as responding to their candidates integrity! The primaries themselves, especially the success of McGovern and Wallace, provide the best evidence for the proposition that voters in 1972 care less about a candidate's stand on particular issues than they do about the candidate's integrity, How McGovern Will Win
a. McGovern gave a tip-of-the-hat to the segregationist Wallace in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. That was the exact midpoint between Goldwater and Reagan. So what of the imaginary southern strategy where the Republicans were supposed to have a plan to appeal to racists?
b. Democrat McGovern: And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stand up and speak out for all of those who see you as their champion.
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN
Covered pretty fully in chapter 12 if "Mugged," Coulter
And....I'd be more than happy...in fact ecstatic .....to remind of the racist history of Bill Clinton.
Just say the word.
Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South for two reasons:
They hated the oppressive federal government led by Democrats that forced integration down their throat. The party that they had been faithful to for 80 years had turned on them. Southern states that had seen segregation die at the point of a bayonet would have voted for anyone other than Johnson.
Barry Goldwater was a strong proponent of states rights. For southerns, states rights was the basis of their argument for segregation. Like Goldwater they believed the federal government did not have the right to trample state segregation laws.
Unlike presidential elections, unseating Democrats in state and local elections was far more difficult and would take many years. Although the segregation issue gave Republicans a big boost in the South in 60's and 70's, it was states rights, increased support for welfare by Democrats, and Democrats support of abortion rights that finished what started with the civil rights movement.
Reagan's war on big government that had destroyed segregation, his condemnation of welfare which in the South benefited mainly blacks, and his stand on abortion which were applauded throughout the bible belt gave the GOP just what they needed to turn the South red.
"all historians think that Russia would have been defeated without our help" is an unfounded statement.
The Soviets simply would have kept withdrawing and moving their factories. They had done that before the USA entered the war.
However, if Hitler's scientists had developed an atomic weapon, yes, the Soviets eventually would have been defeated.
snip till they dripQUOTE]No, you moron.....I would rather they both annihilated each other.
Amazing that that actual had to be said.
I can't decide which is your most annoying characteristic,.... littering, loitering, or living.
Hitler responsible for 6 million (not really but we'll use the accepted number) Jews and other "undesirables", Stalin Responsible for a minimum of 25 million.....mind telling me who's worse?
Whoever is a threat to us. Show me a victim and you show me a coward.
snipped in the budand the weakness of moral fiber continues as folks attack FDR, when, in fact, they would have been cheering him if they had been alive. But Whitehall is honest enough to let us know that he sympathized with the Nazis.
snip 'n' sniff
.
Now name one program that republicans ever came up with that didn't serve anybody but the wealthy and corporations.
Any POTUS who violates the Constitution by placing a group of "undesirables" into concentration camps where thousands died is not one I would consider latching onto Jake.
There were three great socialist experiments run from the mid 1930's into the 1940's....EVERY ONE OF THEM resorted to concentration camps. A thinking person would consider that fact before one threw his lot in with ANYONE.
Social security was a socialist experiment of the 30's and it didn't resort to concentration camps. It's successful to this day and cherished and used by both republicans and democrats. Now name one program that republicans ever came up with that didn't serve anybody but the wealthy and corporations.
How about the end of slavery? Or how about the end of racial segregation which the Democrats fought tooth and nail against? Or how about the EPA? Nixon of all people brought the EPA and NOAA into existence.
If you're going to remain an ignorant twerp do it somewhere else.
The rightwingnuts are still reeling from the beating the FDR gave them. And now, they are trying their best to forget the recent beating the President Obama has twice given them.
Sorry, PC and all, you are not going to be allowed to take this nation back to the 19th Century.
The VICTORS divided the spoils, folks.
That is what PC is bitching about.
It confuses her that the soviets occupied much of Eastern and central Europe.
She imagines that somehow England and the USA were supposed to drive the Soviet troops out of those nations\.
She imagines that they could have, I suppose.
It was deemed a political necessity for US troops to enter the Euro theatre in 1942, in part because of public opinion that was more inflamed towards Japan than Hitler, and in part because of Stalin's distrust, and the Ruskies were doing most of the dying. So, Marshall and King invaded N. Africa. Sicily was ... there. it was to where the Germans retreated from N. Africa. And, Sicily served for a training ground for amphibious operations.
The question was then ... where next. Churchill was enamoured with the balkans since his WWI disaster at Gallopoli. Churchill wanted to avoid another Somme. The US favored Operation Roundup, and France in 1943, but the forces just weren't there. Ike concurred France had to wait for 1944. The force the Allies deployed in Italy was actually less able than that for Sicily, as veteran units were beign moved to England in preparation. But, the Balkans' strategy was never more than a fantasy by an eccentric and haunted politician, Churchill, who rose to greatness largely though his intractibility at a time when the British Empire was at its nadir and needed a symbol.
The question historically was whether Anzio was worth it. Did the continued press in Italy tie down German forces? Did invaded Southern France in late summer of 1944 detract from supplies that could have gone to keep Patton going?
The rightwingnuts are still reeling from the beating the FDR gave them. And now, they are trying their best to forget the recent beating the President Obama has twice given them.
Sorry, PC and all, you are not going to be allowed to take this nation back to the 19th Century.
Why does anyone believe this ruling-class puppet show when the 1% should be held responsible and pay the full price for the mess they've caused? After losing to the Democrats so many times, especially in 1948 and 1960, the rulers gave up on being voted for positively. All evidence proves that they infiltrated their degenerate brats into the Democratic Party to purposely infect it with a disgusting perversion of Liberalism. This made the majority vote against Demwits, with purely a negative motivation for supporting the GOPers, as planned since the 60s' flutter of false flags.
No PC, I merely gave it the credence it deserved. See esp pages 9-13
Introduction: The Basis of Strategy
No PC, I merely gave it the credence it deserved. See esp pages 9-13
Introduction: The Basis of Strategy
"...the credence it deserved."
On whose say-so?
Your source was produced by Columbia University grad .
I have a bit of experience with that university....and you should not be surprised to note a political perspective therein.
My statement comes from General Mark Clark who was, at the time, in command of Allied Armies in Italy.
I believe I'll give Clark the nod.
No PC, I merely gave it the credence it deserved. See esp pages 9-13
Introduction: The Basis of Strategy
"...the credence it deserved."
On whose say-so?
Your source was produced by Columbia University grad .
I have a bit of experience with that university....and you should not be surprised to note a political perspective therein.
My statement comes from General Mark Clark who was, at the time, in command of Allied Armies in Italy.
I believe I'll give Clark the nod.
Mark Clark is not on the hit parade of soldiers that served in Italy. Read up on Clark and the .
"...the credence it deserved."
On whose say-so?
Your source was produced by Columbia University grad .
I have a bit of experience with that university....and you should not be surprised to note a political perspective therein.
My statement comes from General Mark Clark who was, at the time, in command of Allied Armies in Italy.
I believe I'll give Clark the nod.
Mark Clark is not on the hit parade of soldiers that served in Italy. Read up on Clark and the .
Clark's enemies reach the way you do....
Then reality rears it's head:
"Clark became the youngest American to be promoted to general in 1945.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower considered him a brilliant staff officer and trainer."
Mark W. Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Somebody thought he was pretty good:
"During the Korean War, he took over as commander of the United Nations Command on May 12, 1952,..."
Ibid.
"...the credence it deserved."
On whose say-so?
Your source was produced by Columbia University grad .
I have a bit of experience with that university....and you should not be surprised to note a political perspective therein.
My statement comes from General Mark Clark who was, at the time, in command of Allied Armies in Italy.
I believe I'll give Clark the nod.
Mark Clark is not on the hit parade of soldiers that served in Italy. Read up on Clark and the .
Clark's enemies reach the way you do.....
Mark Clark is not on the hit parade of soldiers that served in Italy. Read up on Clark and the .
Clark's enemies reach the way you do.....
Around?
