Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[Faun]

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?

Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - The Peculiar Institution

If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.

When you post crazy shit, yeah, that suffices.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!

As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:

One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.

This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.

The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.

If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.

 

[Geaux4it]

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux

 

[Freewill]

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.

As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument. You point to absolutely nothing as your proof. Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.

You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie. Why won't you just admit it? Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended. The KKK fell out of power and favor. There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH. Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.

 

[Freewill]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!

As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:

One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.

This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.

The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.

If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.

You have to be joking. The left wing and the democrats are about as intolerant of group as one could find. Being tolerant isn't going along with nothing as do the democrats being tolerant is a Christian helping a sinner, which they do, the democrats not so much. Look at the intolerance displayed on this board. Is there a liberal/democrat that has any tolerance for anything a conservative/republican might think?

Take abortion for example. What does the left wing do to counter the argument the at the unborn is worthy of protection? First they vilify, then they claim some unwritten write to choice. Intolerant is the only way to look at the democrat party. A least there are Log Cabin Republicans.

You also use as a defense of democrats the actions of their members which is disingenuous. Much like the left will paint the right as anti-gay, not true, but in fact there are gay in the Republican party. Which, interestingly enough, who are vilified by the democrats.

 

[Ame®icano]

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?

Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - The Peculiar Institution

If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.

When you post crazy shit, yeah, that suffices.

And that is classic leftist argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!

As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:

One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.

This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.

The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.

If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.

You have to be joking. The left wing and the democrats are about as intolerant of group as one could find. Being tolerant isn't going along with nothing as do the democrats being tolerant is a Christian helping a sinner, which they do, the democrats not so much. Look at the intolerance displayed on this board. Is there a liberal/democrat that has any tolerance for anything a conservative/republican might think?

Take abortion for example. What does the left wing do to counter the argument the at the unborn is worthy of protection? First they vilify, then they claim some unwritten write to choice. Intolerant is the only way to look at the democrat party. A least there are Log Cabin Republicans.

You also use as a defense of democrats the actions of their members which is disingenuous. Much like the left will paint the right as anti-gay, not true, but in fact there are gay in the Republican party. Which, interestingly enough, who are vilified by the democrats.

Dear Freewill
1. I'm not using this as a "defense" or "denial" of democrat intolerance which I constantly criticize for the same reasons you and other opponents do, but rather using this to point to exceptions such as Ray Hill as an example of what liberals ought to be doing in terms of inclusion and working with leaders and people of both parties. He has consulted with govt officials at all levels on getting reforms done. He will work with Christians and Conservatives, such as helping Joel Osteen cut through city red tape to get the Compaq Center they were blocking him from buying because they wanted the business revenue and not sell it to a church.

2. I am a progressive prochoice Democrat.
I also strive to do what all citizens and leaders who care about the country should do:
and that is put the Constitution first before party.

And yes I DO give to prolife causes such as my friend Juda Myers
Choices for Life where I bought an ad to support her gala
to promote The Nurturing Network as one of my favorite models for prolife
support of women to prevent abortion and forcing women into it by social
career or financial pressures.

I argue on behalf of prolife beliefs that should be equally and Constitutionally
protected from infringement the same as prochoice beliefs that are equally a choice.

Yes, I know that Liberals such as Ray Hill and me are rare, and we have a greater responsibility to help others to understand where they and the Democrats go wrong.
Ray is even more traditional liberal than me, and willing to push the LGBT agenda
while I also hold it to be a belief or creed that should be a free choice not pushed by govt to the point of penalizing or discriminating against people of opposing beliefs.

3. I am a harder critic of fellow Democrats
and believe the Republicans tend to do better checking their own party
corruption because their members who are Christians and Constitutionalists
already know how to use, cite, invoke and rebuke one another BY THE LAWS.

the Democrats generally don't know how to do this
and have avoided taking the law to conscience as the conservatives do.
instead they rely on party and media to bully to protest and demand reforms.

So I tend to focus more on correcting that problem.
I will correct Republicans and conservatives when they get off point
and start bullying liek their counterparts instead of STICKING TO PRINCIPLE.
I have virtually "yelled" and lectured Republicans to unite and get their act
together because the Democrats surely won't follow the Constitution
if the Republicans stray and don't enforce it. We need them to do their job!

So I am a Constitutional first.
I find it is only fair, ethical and consistent to defend
the beliefs of people of both parties from each other,
as well as the other parties where key solutions
are coming from the Greens and Libertarians
who can't be heard if the floors of Courts and Congress are dominated by
D and R members bullying and outshouting each other in the media as well.

I can best explain and enforce principles by example.

Ray Hill happens to be a shining example while he is
respected as representing the liberals and Democrats
even more than I am who is constantly labeled a conservative
because of my Constitutional arguments that sound more like
Christians on the right and Conservatives. Sometimes I can
be harder than prolife advocates on their own prolife colleagues who aren't truly supporting the leaders and solutions that would most effectively prevent abortion,
and equally harder than other Democrats liberals and prochoice
on the prochoice people who violate that principle by pushing right to health
care through govt instead of respecting free choice.

So I can be harder on both sides as a Constitutionalist.
But at least those arguments are consistent.

I'm saying if you are going to be prochoice and demand
separation of beliefs from govt, then practice what you preach.

And if you are going to be prolife for Constitutional principles,
then practice and protect those same beliefs for both sides equally.

That ends up being the most consistent enforceable way
I can help defend the beliefs on both sides because I am not
asking to violate the beliefs of the other, but to satisfy and protect both equally.

So that is both prochoice and prolife.
I'm against abortion and believe in 100% prevention
but believe this is best accomplished using a prochoice approach
as the prolife movement already does. They do'nt depend on laws
making abortion illegal or punishing it in order to invest all efforts
and resources in prevention, and they do the best job. So we need
to increase and back up those prevention prolife efforts 100% in order
to reduce and eliminate the causes of unwanted pregrancy and abortion,
in keeping with prolife goals, while not pushing unconstitutional laws
that violate due process and beliefs of prochoice advocates in free choice.

 

[Pogo]

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.

As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument. You point to absolutely nothing as your proof. Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.

You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie. Why won't you just admit it? Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended. The KKK fell out of power and favor. There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH. Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.

Charlottesville?

Ooopsie.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux

Or maybe it's more like "take a picture of where we are, not some freaking trolley tracks in Wisconsin".

 

[Pogo]

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?

Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even born. And vigorously repudiated it. What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?

That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.

Says a lot about "spelling" huh.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

Once again, the history lesson that refuses to sink in --- the Civil War was not between "political parties"; the Republican Party did not fight, or "win", the Civil War. The United States won the Civil War, and it did so with a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President, or as the two collectively named themselves, the "National Union Party".

The Civil War was between regions. In the Presidential election just before it, both the Republican and the Democrat candidates won dead zero electoral votes in the region that seceded. That's because the secession had in spirit already begun. And after that region did secede, it deliberately had no political parties.

As someone posted above, "The problem with your BS is that there is no causality".
Who posted that? You did.

 

[Faun]

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux

Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at Madison Square Garden when it was really in Madison, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.

 

[Faun]

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.

As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument. You point to absolutely nothing as your proof. Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.

You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie. Why won't you just admit it? Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended. The KKK fell out of power and favor. There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH. Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.

You unwittingly make my point and you don’t even know it. You point out how Jim Crow laws ended thanks to Republicans, which is true. That was while the vast majority of Republicans were still in the north and west while the Deep South was still Democrat. Just as with the Civil war, it was north versus south.

That has since switched where the north and west is mostly Democrat and the south is now mostly Republican. What hasn’t changed is that the south was, and is, largely conservative.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux

Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at Madison Square Garden when it was really in Madison, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.

--- and a month after the election itself had already happened.

Peculiar that the OP waddles his way back in here yet has nothing to say to defend his laughable OP. And can't admit to his documentable fuckup.

That's exactly why it follows him around like a puppy wherever he posts. And until he fesses up to it, I'll make sure that puppy keeps a-barkin'. It's the least I can do to call out rank dishonesty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Liberals??? Context???

The difference today is they all wear suits and ties sold by Trump. A few token women and one black man round out the swamp critters:

 

[Pogo]

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...

... to Republican ...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

Racism is a social construct, not a political one, so there is no "party of racism". Racism and the slave trade it fueled was entrenched way before there were any political parties or even a country here. Centuries before.

NOR is such a social construct limited to a region just because slavery was an economic model "here" and not "there". Slavery and racism are not the same thing, even if they work symbiotically. You didn't need to own a slave --- or have any interaction at all with Africans -- to be a racist. Ignorance does that. But you did need to be a racist to participate in African slavery.

We can point out here that in the election of 1860 immediately preceding the Civil War, one of the states also held a referendum on the question of whether black people (read: men) should be given the right to vote in that state. The referendum came back with a resounding NO on that question -- black people, it said, should not be given the right to vote. And that state was ---- New York. Which in the very same election voted for Abraham Lincoln, the guy from the new upstart party that was making noises about Abolition.

So this matter is always more complex than "racism is all in the South". Racism actually comes in regional flavors.

In another example the influx of black migration to the factories springing up in Illinois and Michigan and Indiana and Ohio and Pennsylvania, etc etc saw these new workers shunted off into segregated living facilities. And those were also prime recruiting fields for the Klan, who preyed on that fear of the "invading hordes". That's why the Klan also railed against immigrants and labor unions. And when the Klan got people voted into office in those places they were Republicans,while its candidates in the South were Democrats. That's not a cause-and-effect political relationship; it's a simple case of political expediency --- whatever would sell in that time and that place.

 

[Ame®icano]

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality. Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism. Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true. There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism. The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts. Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws. There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?

Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even born. And vigorously repudiated it. What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?

That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.

Says a lot about "spelling" huh.

Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?

And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?

By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?

Let's finish that list:
1. Strom Thurmond,
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fill the blanks.

 

[Pogo]

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?

Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even born. And vigorously repudiated it. What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?

That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.

Says a lot about "spelling" huh.

Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?

And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?

By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?

Let's finish that list:
1. Strom Thurmond,
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fill the blanks.

You're on ignore until you learn to grow the fuck up, Peewee.

Quit wasting everybody's bandwidth with these childish horseshit games.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican. Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.

You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats. As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism). You are trying to prove causality without proof. Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist. That is foolishness to assume such.

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism. The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.

They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?

Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even born. And vigorously repudiated it. What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?

That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.

Says a lot about "spelling" huh.

Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?

And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?

By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?

Let's finish that list:
1. Strom Thurmond,
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fill the blanks.

There are not enough blanks:

Party switching in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Peach]

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux

Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at Madison Square Garden when it was really in Madison, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.

I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.

The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital