Setting the record straight on the the Civil Rights Act

[g5000]

"Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there for years and all the legislation they wanted to bring up they brought up and got it out of the way, and now they bring up you. You put them first and they put you last, cause you are a chump (huge applause). A political chump." -- Malcolm X

You seem to be deliberately quoting Malcolm X out of context to try to prove some ridiculous Teabagger notion that Democrats are racists because Malcolm X said so. You still seem to be missing the fact that it was SOUTHERN Democrats who were the slavers, KKK and white supremacy choads. When Malcolm X said "down there" he meant Virginia and the Southern racist Confederate states.

Southern racist Democrats became Southern racist Republicans in the late 1960s. The key word there is "SOUTHERN" meaning "Confederate racist slaveowners and their offspring."

If Democrats are so racist against black people then why did Obama get reelected? Undocumented widespread voter fraud?

Rott is willfully stupid. He's been schooled on this subject many times. You'd think they would figure out that having to go back more than 50 years to "prove" their point about Southern conservatives being some kind of indication of the present day Democrat is about as retarded as it gets.

The Southern conservative Democrats were HUGE on states rights, remember? And they HATED Marxism and commies with a passion. They also demanded low taxes. And, of course, they were big time bible thumpers.

Does any of this sound like people you know today?

Yeah.

And those same people we all know are the ones claiming the modern day descendents of those Southern conservatives are still true to their KKK roots! Do you get how hilarious this admission is?

But they don't need to tell us that. We can plainly see it. The anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-Mexican, anti-black rhetoric.

Alive and well, all right! In the present day Republican Party, just as planned: Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

That's a Republican strategist laying out the GOP plan going forward.

Sadly, the anti big government principles of the old GOP are gone. The anti big spending principles of the old GOP are gone. The biblical principles of the old GOP are gone.

The bible is now just an instrument of convenience when it suits. It gets you elected by the rubes so you can hump staffers, and it keeps the homos in their place.

How sad that all the true Republican principles withered once the bigots were allowed to infect and rule the roost.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there for years and all the legislation they wanted to bring up they brought up and got it out of the way, and now they bring up you. You put them first and they put you last, cause you are a chump (huge applause). A political chump." -- Malcolm X

You seem to be deliberately quoting Malcolm X out of context to try to prove some ridiculous Teabagger notion that Democrats are racists because Malcolm X said so. You still seem to be missing the fact that it was SOUTHERN Democrats who were the slavers, KKK and white supremacy choads. When Malcolm X said "down there" he meant Virginia and the Southern racist Confederate states.

Southern racist Democrats became Southern racist Republicans in the late 1960s. The key word there is "SOUTHERN" meaning "Confederate racist slaveowners and their offspring."

If Democrats are so racist against black people then why did Obama get reelected? Undocumented widespread voter fraud?

"Down there" in DC you fucking retard

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“The praise of LBJ as a civil rights pioneer is nonsense. First of all, LBJ had earlier voted against civil rights, like banning lynching. He voted against eliminating poll taxes. And [he voted for] denying federal funding to segregated schools. He voted against all the measures that later made up a big part of the legislation that he finally signed,” Pat explained.

Yet all Johnson's rhetoric could not entirely disarm the suspicions of civil rights advocates. If he had felt so strongly about the issue, why had it taken him so long to act on it? Why was he going to make an all-out fight for the civil rights bill now? Roy Wilkins asked him at their December meeting. Johnson thought a minute, wrinkled his brow and said: "You will recognize the words I'm about to repeat. Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last." Borrowing from Martin Luther King's speech to the civil rights advocates who had marched on Washington in the summer of 1963, Johnson was describing himself as liberated from his southern political bonds or as a man who could now fully put the national interest and moral concerns above political restraints imposed on a Texas senator.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President

Continuing the LBJ Big Lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-of-lbj-and-race-goebbles-would-be-proud.html

 

[paperview]

I think another reason Frank likes to bring up Johnson so often, is cause it's the closest it's the closest he can get to a BJ.

 

[hunarcy]

The Founders compromised on slavery because the Southern states would not have joined the Union if they could not keep their precious slaves.

Oh, and Eli's Cotton Gin was invented in 1793.

Ah, so you agree that the Founders did not stand for slavery and that it was a compromise? I'm glad you can admit that.

And, nice catch on the cotton gin. But, I think if you REALLY reread my post, you'll find that the point was that slavery was dying out until that Northerner invented the cotton gin.

According to the Eli Whitney Museum website:


Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave

The Cotton Gin | The Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop

So, way to focus on inanity rather than address the point.

Of course it was a compromise. A dirty, shitty compromise that kicked the can down the road, but had to be done, or else the slaveholding Founders would have never joined the Union.

So was the 3/5ths compromise, which gave the southerners representation for property.

So too the Fugitive Slave Clause.

The Southerners had no intention of giving up their slaves. The Cotton Gin helped provide the mechanism to exploit the "peculiar institution" further. Had it not been that, it would have been something else. It was not dying out.

"As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them." <--- Said at the Constitutional Convention.

Wow, you're determined to hold on to that "the Founders were racists" like a religious belief. Since it's a cornerstone of your belief system, I won't upset you by slapping you with facts. But, I will encourage you to investigate why Virginia authorized the manumission of it's slaves in 1782 if their goal was to perpetuate slavery forever. Over 10,000 slaves were freed and the "peculiar institution" began to die out in other parts of the South until the cotton gin made slavery profitable again. In 1783, Maryland forbid further importation of slaves.

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees."--George Washington, September 9, 1786

As a result of the notions about equality that formed the foundation of the American Revolutionary War and the Great Awakening, there was widespread abolitionist sentiment in southern churches between 1789 and the late 1820s. There is plenty of evidence that some southern planters were uneasy about owning slaves and made every effort to educate and manumit them. During the 1820s, one group of white southerners (American Colonization Society) arranged to transport freed slaves back to a colony on the West African coast in what became the independent country of Liberia.

But, you have your beliefs, so I'm sure facts won't sway you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think another reason Frank likes to bring up Johnson so often, is cause it's the closest it's the closest he can get to a BJ.

Dream on

 

[paperview]

Ah, so you agree that the Founders did not stand for slavery and that it was a compromise? I'm glad you can admit that.

And, nice catch on the cotton gin. But, I think if you REALLY reread my post, you'll find that the point was that slavery was dying out until that Northerner invented the cotton gin.

According to the Eli Whitney Museum website:


Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave

The Cotton Gin | The Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop

So, way to focus on inanity rather than address the point.

Of course it was a compromise. A dirty, shitty compromise that kicked the can down the road, but had to be done, or else the slaveholding Founders would have never joined the Union.

So was the 3/5ths compromise, which gave the southerners representation for property.

So too the Fugitive Slave Clause.

The Southerners had no intention of giving up their slaves. The Cotton Gin helped provide the mechanism to exploit the "peculiar institution" further. Had it not been that, it would have been something else. It was not dying out.

"As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them." <--- Said at the Constitutional Convention.

Wow, you're determined to hold on to that "the Founders were racists" like a religious belief. Since it's a cornerstone of your belief system, I won't upset you by slapping you with facts. But, I will encourage you to investigate why Virginia authorized the manumission of it's slaves in 1782 if their goal was to perpetuate slavery forever. Over 10,000 slaves were freed and the "peculiar institution" began to die out in other parts of the South until the cotton gin made slavery profitable again. In 1783, Maryland forbid further importation of slaves.

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees."--George Washington, September 9, 1786

As a result of the notions about equality that formed the foundation of the American Revolutionary War and the Great Awakening, there was widespread abolitionist sentiment in southern churches between 1789 and the late 1820s. There is plenty of evidence that some southern planters were uneasy about owning slaves and made every effort to educate and manumit them. During the 1820s, one group of white southerners (American Colonization Society) arranged to transport freed slaves back to a colony on the West African coast in what became the independent country of Liberia.

But, you have your beliefs, so I'm sure facts won't sway you.

Dude, you know diddly squat about me or what my belief systems are...so drink a a tall glass of STFU on that one.

Second: at this exact moment I literally have original letters from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on my desk. The same papers they touched, I am touching. I make my living in history and it'll never once be the day you think you can school me in history.

I adore the Founders and even named my son after Thomas Jefferson.

I also understand & acknowledge that of course they were racist. By today's standards almost every one was. Slaveholders take on a bigger brunt of that charge, but...it's immaterial -- I also understand they were men of their time -- and revere the fine work they did in creating our government.

In no world can a slaveholder not be a racist.

No, Slavery wasn't dying out -- no, the slaveholders were not going to give up their slaves, yes, the slaveholders were the reason slavery was written into the Constitution, or else they never would have joined the compact they subscribed to in 1787.

-- and you should know when you swipe words from a text you found on the web, you really otta put quotes around it rather than claim them for your own.

 

[hunarcy]

Dude, you know diddly squat about me or what my belief systems are...so drink a a tall glass of STFU on that one.

Second: at this exact moment I literally have original letters from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on my desk. The same papers they touched, I am touching. I make my living in history and it'll never once be the day you think you can school me in history.

I adore the Founders and even named my son after Thomas Jefferson.

I also understand & acknowledge that of course they were racist. By today's standards almost every one was. Slaveholders take on a bigger brunt of that charge, but...it's immaterial -- I also understand they were men of their time -- and revere the fine work they did in creating our government.

In no world can a slaveholder not be a racist.

No, Slavery wasn't dying out -- no, the slaveholders were not going to give up their slaves, yes, the slaveholders were the reason slavery was written into the Constitution, or else they never would have joined the compact they subscribed to in 1787.

-- and you should know when you swipe words from a text you found on the web, you really otta put quotes around it rather than claim them for your own.

Sorry Dud, but your words reflect your attitudes and show you to be a small minded, pedantic buffoon who knows nothing of history and instead have a religious belief that you want to portray as history. And, while you may have letters, you obviously have no understanding of the concepts and ideas that they represent.

So, as I said, since it'd be less than useful to debate your religion of "everyone's a racist", I'll banish you to ignore because a closed mind is not interesting.

 

[Pogo]

Let's take a look at Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson's own racist words, shall we? This represents how the Dumbocrats have always looked at minorities:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

How embarrassing for you and your despicable party. Now lie some more junior...

Speaking of "lie some more".... interesting quote there; Steve McRacist is running that quote in his sig line right now.

Doesn't it suck that nobody anywhere has any source for it?

Lie some more junior....

 

[paperview]

Dude, you know diddly squat about me or what my belief systems are...so drink a a tall glass of STFU on that one.

Second: at this exact moment I literally have original letters from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on my desk. The same papers they touched, I am touching. I make my living in history and it'll never once be the day you think you can school me in history.

I adore the Founders and even named my son after Thomas Jefferson.

I also understand & acknowledge that of course they were racist. By today's standards almost every one was. Slaveholders take on a bigger brunt of that charge, but...it's immaterial -- I also understand they were men of their time -- and revere the fine work they did in creating our government.

In no world can a slaveholder not be a racist.

No, Slavery wasn't dying out -- no, the slaveholders were not going to give up their slaves, yes, the slaveholders were the reason slavery was written into the Constitution, or else they never would have joined the compact they subscribed to in 1787.

-- and you should know when you swipe words from a text you found on the web, you really otta put quotes around it rather than claim them for your own.

Sorry Dud, but your words reflect your attitudes and show you to be a small minded, pedantic buffoon who knows nothing of history and instead have a religious belief that you want to portray as history. And, while you may have letters, you obviously have no understanding of the concepts and ideas that they represent.

So, as I said, since it'd be less than useful to debate your religion of "everyone's a racist", I'll banish you to ignore because a closed mind is not interesting.

Translation: The plagiarist can't refute what I said, pops a punt, then says: IGNORE!


Weak, man, so incredibly weak.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone on the Left have a thought about LBJ's Thurgood Marshall comment?

 

[paperview]

Ella BJ Frank strikes again.

Seriously: I swear the way you carry on about him for years now, in damn near every post, you are just fucknut cwazy about the Johnson.

At what point do you admit an unhealthy obsession?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ella BJ Frank strikes again.

Seriously: I swear the way you carry on about him for years now, in damn near every post, you are just fucknut cwazy about the Johnson.

At what point do you admit an unhealthy obsession?

You just don't care. I'm not surprised.

 

[paperview]

Someone: Please - get Frank hooked up with a Ten Step Program to wean him off the Johnson.

The poor man is suffering. can't you see?

 

[katsteve2012]

Does anyone on the Left have a thought about LBJ's Thurgood Marshall comment?

It's quite simple. Lyndon Johnson was a native Texan who most likely retained his "old school" south of the Mason Dixon Line mentality, however he was intelligent enough to realize that what he supported publicly as the President was more important to his legacy in history. So he compromised.

Bottom line, he placed his job first over his personal beliefs.

Next.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Party that had a KKK Grand Kleagle as Senate Majority Leader has no comment on President Johnson comments on Thurgood Marshall.

Shocking, I tell ya.

 

[Pogo]

Someone: Please - get Frank hooked up with a Ten Step Program to wean him off the Johnson.

The poor man is suffering. can't you see?

Maybe LBJ's got Frank's pecker in his pocket.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone on the Left have a thought about LBJ's Thurgood Marshall comment?

It's quite simple. Lyndon Johnson was a native Texan who most likely retained his "old school" south of the Mason Dixon Line mentality, however he was intelligent enough to realize that what he supported publicly as the President was more important to his legacy in history. So he compromised.

Bottom line, he placed his job first over his personal beliefs.

Next.

You find LBJ's description of Thurgood Marshall admirable?

 

[paperview]

Can Frankie the Pankie come up with something better than 50 - 60 year old jarbage?

 

[paperview]

<cough> Jessie Helms

Strom Thurmond </cough>