The history of left-wing policies

[TemplarKormac]

Reality is the liberals in DC today follow the same principles of left-wing goons in Russia, China, Cuba, etc through the years with their socialist experiments.

"Spreading the wealth" is the theme that just flows from the mouth of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Obama.

It's hilarious and infuriating to continuously hear the same mangled bullshit from asshole FOX-watching Republicans, and the best/worst/funniest/most enraging part is that these fucking talking monkeys are too stupid to admit how god-damned idiotic they are.

What part of "95% of economic gains since 2009 went to the 1%" is Marxist? Please explain how Obama is taking all of the money from the 1% and giving it away if the 1% made 95% of the money since Obama has been in office.

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1% - Sep. 15, 2013
95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Inequality: Growing apart | The Economist
Top 1% took in record share of income in 2012- MSN Money
BBC News - US income inequality at record high
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf

Hey genius! What president has been in office since 2009? By opposing the Bush Tax Cuts, he basically gave gave the finger to the rich. When a government taxes income, it uses it for various purposes, including welfare checks and food stamps, which is nothing more than redistributionism of rich people's money, just as is done with your money or any other middle class citizens money. Redistributionism is inherently Marxist, and Obama has made no secret of his intentions to redistribute wealth.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

Actually, you are completely wrong

There is nothing intrinsic about Republucans that supported Civil Rights. Republicans in the south opposed integration. It was properly an issue of the south against the rest of the country
If you want to make it a political issue, it was both Democratic and Republican Liberals who supported Civil Rights
Conservatives played the same states rights games they play today

 

[Moonglow]

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

Actually, you are completely wrong

There is nothing intrinsic about Republucans that supported Civil Rights. Republicans in the south opposed integration. It was properly an issue of the south against the rest of the country
If you want to make it a political issue, it was both Democratic and Republican Liberals who supported Civil Rights
Conservatives played the same states rights games they play today

Nubes in toyland. Gotta educate the so called educated.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

Actually, you are completely wrong

There is nothing intrinsic about Republucans that supported Civil Rights. Republicans in the south opposed integration. It was properly an issue of the south against the rest of the country
If you want to make it a political issue, it was both Democratic and Republican Liberals who supported Civil Rights
Conservatives played the same states rights games they play today

You're rebutting my facts with contention and emotion. You yourself cannot disprove me. Simply by limiting it to one geographical area does not an argument make. First your argument is against the party, then it's against the party as it was in the south. You're moving the goalposts. You're pathetic. Presenting a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument in order to say Republicans never supported Civil Rights is entirely too predictable coming from you.

And don't get me started on the difference between a conservative and a Republican, either. Because one has nothing to do with the other.

Go away.

 

[Iceweasel]

The party realignment that took place following the Voting Rights Act is historical fact. Explaining that and the Southern Strategy to those too thick-skulled to acknowledge history is getting old.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? Sorry, try again.

 

[rightwinger]

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

Actually, you are completely wrong

There is nothing intrinsic about Republucans that supported Civil Rights. Republicans in the south opposed integration. It was properly an issue of the south against the rest of the country
If you want to make it a political issue, it was both Democratic and Republican Liberals who supported Civil Rights
Conservatives played the same states rights games they play today

You're rebutting my facts with contention and emotion. You yourself cannot disprove me. Simply by limiting it to one geographical area does not an argument make. First your argument is against the party, then it's against the party as it was in the south. You're moving the goalposts. You're pathetic. Presenting a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument in order to say Republicans never supported Civil Rights is entirely too predictable coming from you.

And don't get me started on the difference between a conservative and a Republican, either. Because one has nothing to do with the other.

Go away.

Please......save some integrity on this board and admit you are just playing party politics

Can you actually with a straight face, claim that the geographical area of the south was not the overriding factor affecting ones position on Civil Rights?

Try to save some face here TK

 

[aaronleland]

The party realignment that took place following the Voting Rights Act is historical fact. Explaining that and the Southern Strategy to those too thick-skulled to acknowledge history is getting old.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? Sorry, try again.

Everything stated is backed up by citations. Obviously you are living in the Wikipedia of the past as well.

 

[Iceweasel]

Everything stated is backed up by citations. Obviously you are living in the Wikipedia of the past as well.

Then use the source.

 

[aaronleland]

Everything stated is backed up by citations. Obviously you are living in the Wikipedia of the past as well.

Then use the source.

Do you need my help with Google as well?

 

[Bfgrn]

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

Southern conservatives tried to filibuster it, wiseguy. And that is why the south has been solid red ever since. Does your selective history include Nixon's southern strategy, or is that not allowed in your dogma infested mind?

Back in the '50's the GOP had actual liberals in the party. I am old enough to remember.

 

[Iceweasel]

Everything stated is backed up by citations. Obviously you are living in the Wikipedia of the past as well.

Then use the source.

Do you need my help with Google as well?

Nope. BTW, I normally use Duckduckgo. Google doesn't own the internet.



Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP « Freedoms Journal
Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have lead astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page).

uring the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors' ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]

Conclusion

While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it’s clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State’s Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history, but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle.

 

[Bfgrn]

Then use the source.

Do you need my help with Google as well?

Nope. BTW, I normally use Duckduckgo. Google doesn't own the internet.



Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP « Freedoms Journal
Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have lead astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page).

uring the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors' ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]

Conclusion

While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it’s clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State’s Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history, but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle.

LMAO! That is not how campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

 

[aaronleland]

Then use the source.

Do you need my help with Google as well?

Nope. BTW, I normally use Duckduckgo. Google doesn't own the internet.



Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP « Freedoms Journal
Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have lead astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page).

uring the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors' ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]

Conclusion

While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it’s clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State’s Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history, but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle.

Ah. Freedoms Journal. Sounds unbiased enough. Let's look at some of their most current articles.

We Are Not ?All God?s Children? « Freedoms Journal

If I Were A Black Man, I?d Join A Gang! « Freedoms Journal

President Obama: Mr. Inequality « Freedoms Journal

Yeah... I'll stick with Wikipedia's sources to the California Law Review.

 

[Iceweasel]

LMAO! That is not how campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

I have no idea if he really said that or not but by what measure does the comments of a campaign consultant reflect the whole political party? Should I research some Democrat consultants for you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Ah. Freedoms Journal. Sounds unbiased enough. Let's look at some of their most current articles.

We Are Not ?All God?s Children? « Freedoms Journal

If I Were A Black Man, I?d Join A Gang! « Freedoms Journal

President Obama: Mr. Inequality « Freedoms Journal

Yeah... I'll stick with Wikipedia's sources to the California Law Review.

A smear campaign? Why I'm shocked. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Can you address some of the facts brought up? Which statistic is wrong?

 

[aaronleland]

Ah. Freedoms Journal. Sounds unbiased enough. Let's look at some of their most current articles.

We Are Not ?All God?s Children? « Freedoms Journal

If I Were A Black Man, I?d Join A Gang! « Freedoms Journal

President Obama: Mr. Inequality « Freedoms Journal

Yeah... I'll stick with Wikipedia's sources to the California Law Review.

A smear campaign? Why I'm shocked. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Can you address some of the facts brought up? Which statistic is wrong?

Again, you are living in the Wikipedia of the past. Everything stated has citations leading to their source. Your article cites nothing. If you click on the citation numbers in your article it takes you back to the same article. They are literally citing themselves. The "facts" brought up are backed up by nothing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, you are living in the Wikipedia of the past. Everything stated has citations leading to their source. Your article cites nothing. If you click on the citation numbers in your article it takes you back to the same article. They are literally citing themselves. The "facts" brought up are backed up by nothing.

Again, your assertions are not facts. Wikipedia is open to editing, there is no one checking on all the citations. You need to use the sources. Nor is it my shortcoming that you are too stupid to read:

"(Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page)."

 

[aaronleland]

Again, you are living in the Wikipedia of the past. Everything stated has citations leading to their source. Your article cites nothing. If you click on the citation numbers in your article it takes you back to the same article. They are literally citing themselves. The "facts" brought up are backed up by nothing.

Again, your assertions are not facts. Wikipedia is open to editing, there is no one checking on all the citations. You need to use the sources. Nor is it my shortcoming that you are too stupid to read:

"(Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page)."

For the love of Christ, was it really that hard to click on the citations yourself? Just admit you don't know how the internet works.

Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America by Richard H. Pildes :: SSRN

 

[aaronleland]

Dr. Wallace is the founder and Publisher of Freedom's Journal Magazine. He has been in publishing for over 15 years and in ministry over 30 years. He holds a PhD in Biblical studies and is an ordained minister. He also serves as the CEO of Wallace Multimedia Group, LLC, the parent company of this magazine. He is married to Jennifer Wallace and they have two sons Eric and Greg.

And to think, I was taking the word of the California Law Review, and the NYU School of Law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

Southern conservatives tried to filibuster it, wiseguy. And that is why the south has been solid red ever since. Does your selective history include Nixon's southern strategy, or is that not allowed in your dogma infested mind?

Back in the '50's the GOP had actual liberals in the party. I am old enough to remember.

That's also not pertinent. I know people who were alive during that era, including my own grandmother. A Democrat is a Democrat, even if in name only. My history isn't selective, namely because I don't believe only the South was racist or segregated. Your ad hominem suggests a weakening argument.

So, why rewrite history as you are accusing others of doing. It is inaccurate to say the GOP had "actual liberals" in the party. Back then a liberal Republican was closer to the center. They weren't liberals, they were centrists simply because they were further to the left of the rest of the party. Using your logic, I could say there were "actual conservatives" in the Democratic party; but given this pesky thing called reality, once again, they were also further to the right of the rest of their party, closest to the center.

I don't care if you are Methuselah himself, you're still wrong.