Real Racism: A History of the Democratic Party

[TemplarKormac]

The civil rights were passed by Congress, and signed by LBJ, with the Dems in the majority and aided by the GOP in the minority. That is what we inherit, TK: the history, the whole and accurate history.

And, yes, BG's silliness is our part of our history.

Once again, Democrats filibustered the bill, they were forced to vote for this bill or be rendered irrelevant by the swelling tide of support for racial equality.

However, Eisenhower passed the very first ever Civil Rights Bill since Reconstruction, in 1957. Guess who tried to block it? Strom Thurmond a then Democrat, who filibustered the bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

How exactly did they "aid" the Democrats?

"In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

Back to Steele's quote: "We fought very hard in the '60s to get the civil rights bill passed as well as the voting rights bill."

The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it's also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time."

PolitiFact | Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've refuted your nonsense comprehensively. Your lame attempts to deny that only make it more enjoyable.

If you can divorce yourself from the Goldwater Republicans, then certainly any liberal Democrat today can divorce himself from the conservative segregationist Democrats.

But...

Is the modern Republican Party more the Goldwater party than the Nelson Rockefeller party?

Of course it is. Moderate centrist civil rights supporting Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller are reviled by the modern GOP.

The modern GOP is the party of the likes of Rand Paul, straight out of the Goldwater legacy of the GOP.

If refutation of my argument entails name calling, then I am due for a trip to the looney bin. The rest of your 'argument' is moot. All you Democrats have done is introduce strwamen like Barry Goldwater into this debate to deflect away from your atrocious past.

lol, so Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, is a strawman, but southern conservative Democrats are not?

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

He is not the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke is. Must I repeat myself?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point of this thread was to apprise Democrats of the actions of their predecessors. Not about what happened to them when their racism was relegated to the dustbin of history.

No, you are making one more comically lame attempt at guilt by association between today's Democrats and southern conservative Democrats of long ago.

You're an idiot. You should go away and get a new pasttime and stop annoying us with your tedious stupidity.

A Democrat is a Democrat, buddy. Sorry to break that to ya!

So my OP was a success. All you can do is call me stupid, idiotic, and tedious. You lack a coherent argument, because as I just read, buckeye just kicked your ass, badly.

The Dixiecrat Myth | Black & Right

My work here is done.

To quote YOUR link:

Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

So in your opinion, the heir to the idiocy of Goldwater was the idiot Reagan,

along with the apparently idiotic new solid south, for whom the idiot Goldwater's heir became their new superhero.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't be an asshole. Please. I enjoy seeing a conservative have to throw Barry Goldwater under the bus in a desperate attempt to defend some assinine point they've tried to make.

I really didn't like Barry Goldwater. Another thing was you tried to link him to modern conservatism. A third thing is that you think Barry Goldwater voted against the 64 act for racist reasons. In fact there was one provision in the entire bill that dealt with the private property.


Barry Goldwater felt that business should not have to be told who to accept and deny service to, so he swiftly voted against it. Theretofore, He previously supported the integration of the Arizona Air National guard. However, as stated just earlier, his vote against the bill won a ton of segregationist Democrats over to his side, and he swept the south from Lyndon in the Election because of it, not to mention he was nominated by the GOP since all of those segregationists voted for Goldwater in the primaries. They all (the Democrats) mistakenly believed he was a segregationist, but that could not have been more further from the truth.

And as you so easily forget, there were hardly any Republicans in the South, since almost all state and local legislatures held Democratic majorities. You can't pull the wool over my eyes. Don't be an idiot. You lost this argument.

Every Republican representative in the South voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if there were very few of them, they were indistinguishable from the Democrats on the issue of segregation...

...therefore...

...it is foolish of you to try to pin Southern racism of long ago on the Democratic Party, and further to attempt to associate it with the modern Democratic Party.

A combined 11 southern republicans from the house and senate voted against the Civil Right Act. The rest of the Party was concentrated in the North. Sorry, that argument is invalid. Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If refutation of my argument entails name calling, then I am due for a trip to the looney bin. The rest of your 'argument' is moot. All you Democrats have done is introduce strwamen like Barry Goldwater into this debate to deflect away from your atrocious past.

lol, so Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, is a strawman, but southern conservative Democrats are not?

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

He is not the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke is. Must I repeat myself?

You can be wrong as many times as you like.

I'll repeat the question:

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How exactly did they "aid" the] Democrats?

Once again, "The civil rights were passed by Congress, and signed by LBJ, with the Dems in the majority and aided by the GOP in the minority. That is what we inherit, TK: the history, the whole and accurate history. And, yes, BG's silliness is our part of our history."

The acts of 1964 and 1965 are the civil rights acts that definitively changed American history.

How grateful I am our GOP participated, even in the minority, in supporting this great legislation.

How grateful I am that reactionary revisionit arguments are used in our public and college institutions to illustrate that the mainstream Democratic majority and the Republican minority worked together for the good of the country and its citizens.

 

[JoeB131]

Going to ignore your usual blah, blah, blah, that women and blacks are stupid because they mistrust Republicans

[



The fact is, no matter how the Democratic party leans, they are incredibly destructive to society. Conservative or Liberal. I don't give a flying fuck if they were "conservative"
or not. I never labeled them as such in my OP. This was nothing but a pathetic attempt to deflect from reality.

Guy, my life isn't in the state it is in today because of what Democrats did.

It's in the state it's in because I voted for Bush even though, deep down, I suspected he was slightly retarded.

When Bill Clinton left office, I had a great paying job, sold my house for twice what I paid for it, and everything in my life was going in the right direction. And what was I upset about? He lied about a blow job.

When Bush-43 left office, my home was worth only half of what I owed on it, I took a 20% pay cut to keep working.

Seriously, why anyone votes REpublican at this point is a mystery to me. Even the fucking 1%ers, because they did pretty good under Clinton. They were just upset they had to share some of that with the wage slaves.

But understanding why blacks vote against republicans after Reagan's welfare queens and Bush's Willy Horton ads... that's an easy one.

Understanding why women vote against them after Limbaugh calls them sluts and Murdoch tells them rape babies are a gift from God... well, gee... that's an easy one.

Understanding why inbred bible thumping hayseeds don't get it? Well, they are stupid and believe in imaginary friends in the sky they are already gullible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A combined 11 southern republicans from the house and senate voted against the Civil Right Act. The rest of the Party was concentrated in the North. Sorry, that argument is invalid. Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

The vote was the majority Dems and the minority Repubs in the North and West beating down the segregations Dems and Repubs in the South.

You cannot finesse this as a GOP led legislation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And as you so easily forget, there were hardly any Republicans in the South, since almost all state and local legislatures held Democratic majorities. You can't pull the wool over my eyes. Don't be an idiot. You lost this argument.

Every Republican representative in the South voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if there were very few of them, they were indistinguishable from the Democrats on the issue of segregation...

...therefore...

...it is foolish of you to try to pin Southern racism of long ago on the Democratic Party, and further to attempt to associate it with the modern Democratic Party.

A combined 11 southern republicans from the house and senate voted against the Civil Right Act. The rest of the Party was concentrated in the North. Sorry, that argument is invalid. Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

That argument is invalid why exactly? Because northern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act, that means you cannot call the GOP racist in 1964?

Is that what you're saying?

 

[JoeB131]

[

A combined 11 southern republicans from the house and senate voted against the Civil Right Act. The rest of the Party was concentrated in the North. Sorry, that argument is invalid. Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

Guy, Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights act, and the only states he carried was the Jim Crow states. Regardless how a few decent Republicans voted in Congress, Barry was the face of this issue.

LBJ said at the time, "I've lost the South for a Generation".

He was being optimistic.

Instead of learning from their mistake, the GOP doubled down, starting with Nixon's "Southern Strategy", continuing with Reagan's Imaginary Welfare Queen, and continuing on with such nonsense as Jesse Helms "White Hands" ad and Bush-41's Willie Horton ad.

And let's be honest, the whole playing on white male anxieties has a limited shelf life. Eventually, even the dumbest ones are going to figure out that their real problem are the 1% who have half the wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

How does that work? If, hypothetically, your grandfather happened to be a bank robber, and your father happened to be a wife beater,

how exactly would your inheritance of that manifest itself?

What part of that would you be to blame for?

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, is a strawman, but southern conservative Democrats are not?

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

He is not the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke is. Must I repeat myself?

You can be wrong as many times as you like.

I'll repeat the question:

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

...going once...going twice...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, you are making one more comically lame attempt at guilt by association between today's Democrats and southern conservative Democrats of long ago.

You're an idiot. You should go away and get a new pasttime and stop annoying us with your tedious stupidity.

A Democrat is a Democrat, buddy. Sorry to break that to ya!

So my OP was a success. All you can do is call me stupid, idiotic, and tedious. You lack a coherent argument, because as I just read, buckeye just kicked your ass, badly.

The Dixiecrat Myth | Black & Right

My work here is done.

To quote YOUR link:

Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

So in your opinion, the heir to the idiocy of Goldwater was the idiot Reagan,

along with the apparently idiotic new solid south, for whom the idiot Goldwater's heir became their new superhero.

Goldwater was far from what Reagan aspired to be.

So why did Reagan whip Carter and Mondale in those elections? Because he won 44 states in 1980, and 48 states in 1984, almost a third of Democrats voted for Reagan in 1980, and 1984.

1980:

1984:

 

[TemplarKormac]

He is not the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke is. Must I repeat myself?

You can be wrong as many times as you like.

I'll repeat the question:

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

...going once...going twice...

They are moderates now, carbine. Think about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

How does that work? If, hypothetically, your grandfather happened to be a bank robber, and your father happened to be a wife beater,

how exactly would your inheritance of that manifest itself?

What part of that would you be to blame for?

None of it. But you would still be attributed to them because they are related to you. That's how families work. If you supported their behavior, you may as well get blamed for it, and may very well be a bank robber yourself. If you didn't, though, your past would still haunt you.

And believe it or not, you just busted up Jake's argument about inheritance, not mine.

You can't handle it. Racism is more attributed to Democrats than Republicans, history bears that out, no matter how much you try to spin it.

You can divert, deflect, reorient the goalposts, or spin this as much as you like; my argument is infallible, and I will continue to argue it until you leave the thread or log off. Many people in the last forum I left referred to me as a bulldog, because I always stuck to my guns. You on the other hand, cannot stick to one point long enough to mount effective argument.

Just face it, those were Democrats back then, and when you say you are, the first thing that comes to mind is their obstructionism to racial equality. Had the Republican party been racist, none of them would have touched the Civil Rights act. None. Reality.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

How does that work? If, hypothetically, your grandfather happened to be a bank robber, and your father happened to be a wife beater,

how exactly would your inheritance of that manifest itself?

What part of that would you be to blame for?

Why don't you ask Harry Reid? Wasn't his great grandfather a horse thief?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can be wrong as many times as you like.

I'll repeat the question:

Where are the Rockefeller Republicans today?

...going once...going twice...

They are moderates now, carbine. Think about it.

So the current rising star in the GOP is Rand Paul, the Goldwater disciple,

but you can't actually name any Rockefeller type Republicans of any consequence in the party, despite you trying to argue that the modern Republican party is the same party it was decades ago when it was battling the segregationist states rights wing of the Democratic Party,

and was essentially aligned with the liberal Democrats on issues of race?

lol

 

[JoeB131]

A Democrat is a Democrat, buddy. Sorry to break that to ya!

So my OP was a success. All you can do is call me stupid, idiotic, and tedious. You lack a coherent argument, because as I just read, buckeye just kicked your ass, badly.

The Dixiecrat Myth | Black & Right

My work here is done.

To quote YOUR link:

Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

So in your opinion, the heir to the idiocy of Goldwater was the idiot Reagan,

along with the apparently idiotic new solid south, for whom the idiot Goldwater's heir became their new superhero.

Goldwater was far from what Reagan aspired to be.

So why did Reagan whip Carter and Mondale in those elections? Because he won 44 states in 1980, and 48 states in 1984, almost a third of Democrats voted for Reagan in 1980, and 1984.

]

Reagan won 49 states in 1984, but you were too young to have been there. So I'll give you a pass on your ignorance.

1980 was a different issue. Anderson split the liberal base, and Carter looked ineffective after he insisted he could resolve the Iran crisis and couldn't.

Here was the thing. The Democrats in 1984 had exactly the same problem Republicans had in 2012. The party was so enslaved to the Whims of the base that it could not reach out to the middle. Mondale spent so much time appeasing Jesse Jackson and the AFL-CIO that they simply could not appeal to the "Reagan Democrats" who were socially conservative.

Also, Mondale made the mistake of being honest. He said he'd have to raise taxes. Reagan promised he wouldn't.. and then went ahead and did it anyway.

NOw, the GOP has the same problem today. They are so enslaved to the anti-Choice whacks, the gun whacks, the Christian whacks and the 1%ers that they don't connect with the working class at this point.

Incidently, the way Democrats broke back in was when Bill Clinton had a "Sister Souljah" moment- when he finally called Jesse Jackson out on his bullshit.

Romney couldn't stand up to a nobody like Bryan Fischer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like Jake said, and with whom I agree with partially, is that you must inherit your history, racism and all.

How does that work? If, hypothetically, your grandfather happened to be a bank robber, and your father happened to be a wife beater,

how exactly would your inheritance of that manifest itself?

What part of that would you be to blame for?

None of it. But you would still be attributed to them because they are related to you. That's how families work. If you supported their behavior, you may as well get blamed for it, and may very well be a bank robber yourself. If you didn't, though, your past would still haunt you.

And believe it or not, you just busted up Jake's argument about inheritance, not mine.

You can't handle it. Racism is more attributed to Democrats than Republicans, history bears that out, no matter how much you try to spin it.

You can divert, deflect, reorient the goalposts, or spin this as much as you like; my argument is infallible, and I will continue to argue it until you leave the thread or log off. Many people in the last forum I left referred to me as a bulldog, because I always stuck to my guns. You on the other hand, cannot stick to one point long enough to mount effective argument.

Just face it, those were Democrats back then, and when you say you are, the first thing that comes to mind is their obstructionism to racial equality. Had the Republican party been racist, none of them would have touched the Civil Rights act. None. Reality.

100% of Southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act.

94% of Southern Democrats voted against it.

Which party in the South was more racist? eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

To quote YOUR link:

Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.

So in your opinion, the heir to the idiocy of Goldwater was the idiot Reagan,

along with the apparently idiotic new solid south, for whom the idiot Goldwater's heir became their new superhero.

Goldwater was far from what Reagan aspired to be.

So why did Reagan whip Carter and Mondale in those elections? Because he won 44 states in 1980, and 48 states in 1984, almost a third of Democrats voted for Reagan in 1980, and 1984.

]

Reagan won 49 states in 1984, but you were too young to have been there. So I'll give you a pass on your ignorance.

1980 was a different issue. Anderson split the liberal base, and Carter looked ineffective after he insisted he could resolve the Iran crisis and couldn't.

Here was the thing. The Democrats in 1984 had exactly the same problem Republicans had in 2012. The party was so enslaved to the Whims of the base that it could not reach out to the middle. Mondale spent so much time appeasing Jesse Jackson and the AFL-CIO that they simply could not appeal to the "Reagan Democrats" who were socially conservative.

Also, Mondale made the mistake of being honest. He said he'd have to raise taxes. Reagan promised he wouldn't.. and then went ahead and did it anyway.

NOw, the GOP has the same problem today. They are so enslaved to the anti-Choice whacks, the gun whacks, the Christian whacks and the 1%ers that they don't connect with the working class at this point.

Incidently, the way Democrats broke back in was when Bill Clinton had a "Sister Souljah" moment- when he finally called Jesse Jackson out on his bullshit.

Romney couldn't stand up to a nobody like Bryan Fischer.

So what does have to do with any of my thread? I will not give any of it a response other than it is irrelevant to the subject matter.