The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[The Rabbi]

Ideologies remain the same.

Parties throughout history, change.

It's the ideology that matters.

Also, when it comes to the Civil Rights shift in our country, it's sectional north/south.

Conservatives can't seem to grasp these factors and it's really not all that complex, but apparently a little too complex for some of them to wrap their heads around.

Whut?
How The Boston Busing Decision Still Affects City Schools 40 Years Later WBUR

It isnt that you dont know anything. It's that...yeah, ok, it is that you dont know anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

A typically misleading article that the rubes on the Left eat up.
What does it mean to be "left" or "right" on civil rights issues today? It sure isnt the same thing it meant in 1965. In 1965 those on the "right" presumably were in favor of racial restrictions, in favor of racial quotas. In 2014 those same positions are held by those on the "left".
Racism never left the Democratic Party.

The "left" and the "right" meant exactly the same thing in 1950-65 as it does today.

Orval Faubus - the democrat who famously brought out the Arkansas national guard to block black students from entering Little Rock high school, only to be kicked back into the DNC gutter by Republican Dwight Eisenhower is often claimed by leftists to be a "conservative." Except a little research and one finds that Faubus, a bona fide hero of WWI, came back from the war and joined the COMMUNIST PARTY. When FDR was elected, Faubus switched to the democrats, stating the the goals of FDR and the goals of Communism were one and the same.

So was Faubus a "Conservative Communist?" It's utter stupidity - part of the "big lie" campaign of the filthy democratic party. But Faubus is just one democrat scumbag, what about others? What about Fritz Hollings - famous Klansman and racist? I mean, he was surely conservative, right? Well no, Hollings was leader of the far left through the Clinton Administration. How about Klansman Albert Gore - father of Algore - Pope of the AGW religion. Also far left, big government, welfare state advocate. Or maybe the infamous Eugene "Bull" Connor? Nope, Connor was a self-described Socialist. He viewed Negroes as a natural menial labor force for a Socialist state,

The Segregationists were the radical left of the party - racism and leftism are Siamese twins,

LOL (again) another new effort by a RWer to establish a universal truth which isn't, by an appeal to ignorance and an appeal to authority.

BTW, have you yet figured out the type of demagoguery you alleged?

The question is, Have you? Because there was no demagoguery in his post. Only facts.

There wasn't one fact in his post. Not one.

It was all made up bullshit.

Translation: The facts presented disagree with my preconceived notions and must therefore be wrong.

 

[Erand7899]

Honest people everywhere can condemn the Jim Crow laws and the 100 year reign of Democrat control of the deep South. However, the dumbass concept that racism was a Southern thing, is so obviously false as to be laughable.

I was sitting in a bottle club in Dothan, Alabama watching the march to Birmingham, on TV, while a Black trio played dance music in the adjoining room. A sizeable number of Southern Whites were also watching the TV and discussing what was taking place. There were some racist comments about the marchers, but most of the anger was directed at the "Northern agitators" who needed to go back home and clean up their own backyards.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

 

[Kosh]

You have to remember that the bulk of the far left think that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

They continue to post this over and over all over this board.

 

[LeftofLeft]

This is rich. Lefwing hacksite Politico has a bit of racialist propaganda aimed at Low Info types. They are attempting to gin up the GOP Racism canard...with a photo of George Wallace.

Race and the Modern GOP - Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos - POLITICO Magazine

Too funny by half.

View attachment 32421

Booker T. Washington warned us about these people.

 

[Kosh]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

More proof the far left will rewrite history based on faulty programming..

 

[paperview]

Ideologies remain the same.

Parties throughout history, change.

It's the ideology that matters.

Also, when it comes to the Civil Rights shift in our country, it's sectional north/south.

Conservatives can't seem to grasp these factors and it's really not all that complex, but apparently a little too complex for some of them to wrap their heads around.

Whut?
How The Boston Busing Decision Still Affects City Schools 40 Years Later WBUR

It isnt that you dont know anything. It's that...yeah, ok, it is that you dont know anything.

Your long history of idiocy here precedes you, so there is not much to fear about who knows what.

You fail to grasp the point is not that racism itself is a simply north/south matter, of course there was racism in the nor. Duh....

but the subject we were discussing, and my post was in regards to parties - parties! north/south sectional shift. Get it?

That is, a northern democrat and a southern democrat historically have tended to bend two different ways - and their voting patterns reflected that. Again, this isn't difficult to grasp, but apparently , for you, it was...

 

[paperview]

Trivia tidbit time for connies...George H.W. Bush, Republican. Fer or 'agin' the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

[paperview]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

 

[boedicca]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

 

[ClosedCaption]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

 

[boedicca]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

You said look at the text, you didnt explain how its wrong though

 

[boedicca]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal
Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

Next is the part where you explain how its revisionist

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

You said look at the text, you didnt explain how its wrong though

I'm sorry that you are totally dense, but I really can't help you understand the English language given your limited scope.

 

[Erand7899]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Strange, but Alabama voted Republican in the Presidential race of 1964. So did South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Want to try to explain that one? Every other state, with the exception of Arizona, voted for the racist Democrat, LBJ.

Correlation is not cause and effect. In 1956, with Alabama firmly in Democrat control, 39% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. In 1960, 42% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. Obviously, Alabama contained a whole lot of Republicans prior to the 1965 Civil Rights act.

I could go through the same exercise with the rest of the deep South states, but I doubt it would be a useful exercise in this thread.

 

[paperview]

Wow. Holy shit. Are you fucking kidding me boedi?

That it???

Are you THAT simple minded??

 

[NYcarbineer]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

You idiots should at least read the material you post:

No figure was more crucial to the spread of the movement than Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a Democrat, who burst on to the national scene in 1963, first by demanding “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” during his inaugural address and a few months later by physically blocking two African-American students—the first in the school’s history—from attending the University of Alabama. Overnight, Wallace became not only a hero to the white South, but also the most potent symbol of racial resistance in the country.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218_Page2.html#ixzz3EskCRLzX

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

You've lost. Quit digging.

 

[boedicca]

When they try to call GWB a liberal then you KNOW they'll call anyone a liberal

What a pathetic moron.

The TITLE of the piece is:

Race and the Modern GOP
Let’s not kid ourselves. Today’s deep divides are due to the civil rights movement. (superimposed over a picture of GEORGE WALLACE THE DEMOCRAT.)

The picture isn't 'modern'. The article clearly identifies George Wallace as a historical figure and a Democrat. The article also explains the significance of Wallace's split with the Democratic party.

You cannot cite anything in the article that is revisionist history.

Nor can any of your pals here.

Did anyone address the article yet or what?

I'd like to know what was revisionist since the OP failed

I haven't seen it yet.

No one has shown anywhere where it was revisionist. Not a one.

I suggest you go to the link and look at the text superimposed over the image featuring George Wallace (who, btw, was a Democrat).

You've lost. Quit digging.

Quite the contrary, bub. The desperate whinging by you and your ilk prove that I struck a NOIVE with the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Strange, but Alabama voted Republican in the Presidential race of 1964. So did South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Want to try to explain that one? Every other state, with the exception of Arizona, voted for the racist Democrat, LBJ.

Correlation is not cause and effect. In 1956, with Alabama firmly in Democrat control, 39% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. In 1960, 42% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. Obviously, Alabama contained a whole lot of Republicans prior to the 1965 Civil Rights act.

I could go through the same exercise with the rest of the deep South states, but I doubt it would be a useful exercise in this thread.

This is cause and effect. Remember when LBJ said the Civil Rights Act would cost the Democrats the South for a generation?

That was 50 years ago. Want to add up the net won-loss record for Democrats for southern states in presidential elections since then?

Want to compare that to the prior 50 years?