The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Pogo]

I'll take this onslaught of trolling by liberals as an admission of defeat. There is no way you can profess to be the party of tolerance when you react with utter hostility to members of your own party who hold different views than yours. By your own responses you have made my argument even stronger.

Run away and declare victory. That's always fun.

Oh geez.

If you keep this up, I may have to invoke Godwin's law.

Answer the question. Do you think Jeff Davis as a democrat would have supported obama in the last election, or do you think parties evolve over time?

What does this have to do with my thread? Either you have an argument or you don't. No need to hide it.

Oh nose! Inconvenient! Run away! Run away!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

LOL history is not your strong suit is it?

Really? Other than Strom Thurmond, can you name a single Southern Democrat who became a Republican?

Jesse Helms.

And Trent Lott. And Richard Shelby. And Billy Tauzin. Just off the top of my head.

Really? Other than Strom Thurmond, can you name a single Southern Democrat who became a Republican?

Jesse Helms.

Nine years later.

Next.

Moving the goalposts.

Next...

 

[Pogo]

Conservatives spend so much time pretending to be what they're not it's no wonder they can't ever remember who they really are in the first place.

This is GOP logic.

We are 90% white.

We would like to have more women. We would also like to have more blacks, Hispanics, and minorities. We'd also like to have more LGBTs in our ranks.

For some reason, those sluts, bitches, homies, spics, wetbacks, and gooks, rag heads, turban cowboys, queers, lezbos, fudge packers, and sick twisted freaks hate us.

They're the intolerant ones; we're not.​

This is Democrat Logic

We are for blacks, although being majorly white ourselves.

We care about women, gays, blacks and Christians---so long as they tow the line.

For some reason those mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans all hate us. Why do they still hate us? We're more tolerant than they are. If they disagree with that then they are mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans. TOLERANCE!

Whoops, did I just blow your utopian fantasy out of the water?

Um... no. Trust me, not even close. Again, you gotta get over yourself, ego-boy.

And btw it's toe the line, not "tow".

 

[Pogo]

No matter. At least there are people like you who take the time. In a nutshell, I accuse liberals of being hypocrites for claiming they are for women, blacks, gays and free exercise of religion. I listed examples.

You provided no examples showing that "liberals" are hypocrites in regards to their support for women's rights, minority rights, or the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause.

All you did was provide examples of "liberals" criticizing conservatives, and Democrats taking the phrase "god-given" out of the DNC platform.

Uh yeah, try reading the thread before you comment on it. In all of those instances I cited. Did you hear any liberal speak out against this behavior?

He did. Same as I did. I don't know that guy, never saw him before, yet he and I came to the same conclusion. What do you suppose that indicates? Take your time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who was it said "Republicans don't belong here"? Wanna give that a go? And while I'm at it, are you saying states shouldn't have any rights? Oh, and I oppose succession. I favor preservation of the union. Oh, and guess which party gave birth to the KKK? Who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act?

Next.

Oh no he di'int...

You and I have already been through this, and you know it. And from that you know as well as I do that the KKK was not founded by, nor ever associated with, a political party. If you're about to float yet another history revision turd, don't bother.

Perhaps you didn't read this post. Perhaps you though it was a "forest of words" just like my OP?

Then why were they actively opposing the Republican government at the time? Surely something drove them to it.

I just told you why at the beginning of that post.

Why would the Klan work to elect a Republican governor of Indiana if it was an arm of the Democratic Party? You never did answer that.

Oh, because the time frame is different. I'm talking about the days of Ulysses Grant here. You are referring to the Second Klan, not the First. Until the Klan dissipated they were strictly attack dogs for Democrats in the South. They did everything to terrorize them into voting for people who held more sympathetic views towards their causes. Namely Democrats. I'm talking 1860's here, not 1920's. During Grant's tenure, they actively opposed him and the Republicans, which led to him/them introducing the Force Acts (1870-75). He obliterated them. They were one of the original arms of the Democratic Party. In the book by David Barton entitled Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included." It also says in that book that Democrats worked hand in glove with the KKK and endorsed their behavior.

I will quote the testimony of Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels, who testified before a Congressional inquiry, saying in part that "they (the Ku Klux Klan) belong to the reform part – (that is, to) our party, the Democratic Party.” Essentially, what that means was they were a reformist wing of the Democratic party, much like the Tea Party is for the Republicans. And no, I'm not comparing the two ideologically.

Multiple Congressional investigations bear out what I'm saying here. Especially the one done in 1872, thirteen volumes worth. Specifically in page 97 during E.W. Seibels testimony to either Chairman from the House, Luke P. Poland or the Chairman from the Senate, John Scott:

(Chairman) Question. So far as your information goes, are the persons who commit these outrages, these young men, let them be organized or not, all of one political party?

(Seibels) Answer. Yes, sir; I should say that they are all of one party; and I will tell you why I say so. It is a sweeping remark, it is true, but almost nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the decent people of South Carolina belong to the demo cratic party, or to the reform party. And when anything of that sort is done, I take it for granted that they belong to the reform party, or our party, the democratic party. In South Carolina the republican party is composed entirely of the colored people.

(Chairman) Question. Do you include in the nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand the men who commit these outrages?

(Seibels) Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose they belong to our party, or the democratic party.

Report of the joint select committee appointed to inquire into the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states, 1871, page 97


Furthermore, it says right in your own rendition of the Wiki article that the Force Acts led to "segregationist white Democrats regaining power in all the Southern states by 1877." However, in 1915, Pogo, the Klan re-emerged in Atlanta. The Second Klan was far different from the first. Instead of just attacking Republicans, it branched out, gaining millions of members this time. It adopted a new philosophy. White good, black bad. But there was no doubt about the first klan. Even so, they continued working closely and allying themselves with southern Democrats from 1915 onwards. Instead of just Democrats, they wanted the entire country. They would do it by any means possible. Perhaps you are right about the second incarnation of the KKK, but not the first.

Look. I'm a quick study, Pogo. I delve into archives regularly. I'm hoping to apply this talent in college one day, but sadly it is confined to political forums for now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is GOP logic.

We are 90% white.

We would like to have more women. We would also like to have more blacks, Hispanics, and minorities. We'd also like to have more LGBTs in our ranks.

For some reason, those sluts, bitches, homies, spics, wetbacks, and gooks, rag heads, turban cowboys, queers, lezbos, fudge packers, and sick twisted freaks hate us.

They're the intolerant ones; we're not.​

This is Democrat Logic

We are for blacks, although being majorly white ourselves.

We care about women, gays, blacks and Christians---so long as they tow the line.

For some reason those mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans all hate us. Why do they still hate us? We're more tolerant than they are. If they disagree with that then they are mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans. TOLERANCE!

Whoops, did I just blow your utopian fantasy out of the water?

Um... no. Trust me, not even close. Again, you gotta get over yourself, ego-boy.

And btw it's toe the line, not "tow".

Non sequitur. Grammar Nazis don't win arguments they make sure they're spelled properly. Which has nothing to do with the argument. Ad hominem for calling me "ego boy."

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is Democrat Logic

We are for blacks, although being majorly white ourselves.

We care about women, gays, blacks and Christians---so long as they tow the line.

For some reason those mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans all hate us. Why do they still hate us? We're more tolerant than they are. If they disagree with that then they are mean, hateful-terroristic-anarchistic-astro turfed-arson prone-racist-bigoted-gun loving-misogynistic-redneck-Christian Taliban Republicans. TOLERANCE!

Whoops, did I just blow your utopian fantasy out of the water?

Um... no. Trust me, not even close. Again, you gotta get over yourself, ego-boy.

And btw it's toe the line, not "tow".

Non sequitur. Grammar Nazis don't win arguments the make sure they're spelled properly.

Ver'y we'll sa'id in'deeed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really? Other than Strom Thurmond, can you name a single Southern Democrat who became a Republican?

Jesse Helms.

And Trent Lott. And Richard Shelby. And Billy Tauzin. Just off the top of my head.

Jesse Helms.

Nine years later.

Next.

Moving the goalposts.

Next...

Strom Thurmond was the only Democrat to defect from the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights act. Perhaps if you had read this discussion in context, you would have been able to understand it correctly.

All you liberals have done is move the goalposts, by not addressing my points, but attacking me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll take this onslaught of trolling by liberals as an admission of defeat. There is no way you can profess to be the party of tolerance when you react with utter hostility to members of your own party who hold different views than yours. By your own responses you have made my argument even stronger.

Run away and declare victory. That's always fun.

Answer the question. Do you think Jeff Davis as a democrat would have supported obama in the last election, or do you think parties evolve over time?

What does this have to do with my thread? Either you have an argument or you don't. No need to hide it.

Oh nose! Inconvenient! Run away! Run away!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc[/ame]

Geez, I had you pegged for a humble man. You're a jackass, Pogo, here in the politics forum at least.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, wow... looks like Pogo did run away.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'll take this onslaught of trolling by liberals as an admission of defeat. There is no way you can profess to be the party of tolerance when you react with utter hostility to members of your own party who hold different views than yours. By your own responses you have made my argument even stronger.

Run away and declare victory. That's always fun.

What does this have to do with my thread? Either you have an argument or you don't. No need to hide it.

Oh nose! Inconvenient! Run away! Run away!

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc[/ame]

Geez, I had you pegged for a humble man. You're a jackass, Pogo, here in the politics forum at least.

Well...in fairness....we cannot all be as humble as you, TK. After all, you set the standard. I especially love the way you choose not to claim victory. Ever. Such restraint.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LoneLaugher

This message is hidden because LoneLaugher is on your ignore list.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I rest my case. Liberals cannot claim they stand for anyone; whether it be blacks, gays, women or immigrants, when they treat them with impunity if they are of the opposing party.

 

[Pogo]

Nine years later.

Next.

Nine years after what? Jesse Helms was a self styled "conservative" democrat during his stint at local policies in the 60s. He ran as a "conservative" republican in his 1972 senatorial bid.

Why doesn't he count?

And why are you denying the Southern Strategy? It is just a matter of historical fact. It was savvy politics. Atwater would be rolling in his grave if he found out how many people are ignorant of his historical campaign work.

He doesn't count simply because Thurmond defected in 1964, if his move were motivated by the Civil Rights movement, he would have stated so. Did he?

Who says he would have?
Is K-Mart in Athens having a sale on strawmen this week?

As opposed to Strom Thurmond, he tried to filibuster a bill instituting Martin Luther King Day in 1983. Thurmond appointed Thomas Moss, an African American, to his staff in 1971. Helms to my knowledge never did anything of the sort. Also I'm not denying the Southern Strategy. I'm saying it dissipated. That is a historical fact. It wasn't until the 2000 Presidential election that the South voted majorly for a Republican for president again. Big difference. [/QUOTE]

Except for 1964

... And 1972:

...and 1980:

... and 1984:

... and 1988:

... and 1992:

whoops, a chink in the armor there; again that's the aforementioned failure presidency going up against a Southerner...

... and 1996:

You noticed 1968 was missing? That's because they had a racist to vote for (George Wallace) and so didn't vote either Democratic or Republican.

(graphics from here)

I guess somebody already noted history is not your forte.

That bit about Lee Atwater was a cheap shot. Move along.

How is that a "cheap shot"? Explain.
And how come any time somebody asks an inconvenient question or posts an inconvenient rebuttal, your response is either "move along" or "next"?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I rest my case. Liberals cannot claim they stand for anyone; whether it be blacks, gays, women or immigrants, when they treat them with impunity if they are of the opposing party.

If they are of what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously. Pogo failed miserably. The troll brigade failed miserably. Is this how liberals are? Is this how they debate? Wow. Color me shocked. I though there were actually seriously minded liberals out there wanting to set the record straight. All I ran into was bunch of children in adults clothing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously. Pogo failed miserably. The troll brigade failed miserably. Is this how liberals are? Is this how they debate? Wow. Color me shocked. I though there were actually seriously minded liberals out there wanting to set the record straight. All I ran into was bunch of children in adults clothing.

So humble. I am tearing up.

 

[Pogo]

Jesse Helms never mentioned anything about the Civil Rights movement being a motivating factor for his defection. If you can find where he said so, you'd have a point. Don't take my silence as a concession, I'm waiting for you to disprove my point, which you have yet to do. Lets go hotshot.

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

Uh... Strom Thurmond first defected in 1948 when he ran on the States Rights (Dixiecrat) party, because he didn't like the Democratic platform and the moves and noises Truman and Humphrey were making toward civil rights. Then he came back to the Democrats because, again, a party is a means to an end, that end being getting elected, and the DP still held the power in the South, as it had since the Civil War and the fall of the Whig party. When Thurmond and the rest bolted again in the '60s and '70s, that monolithic power structure in the South simply morphed from blue to red.

That (1948) is exactly what Trent Lott was referring to at Thurmond's birthday party when he put his foot in his mouth about if Thurmond had been elected "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years".

History. Gotta have it.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry. He didn't say anything about the Southern Strategy. You specifically said he MENTIONED IT as in "he said so himself." Now if you will excuse me.

You are taking things too literally and need to infer a bit more. He doesn't need to say the words, "southern strategy", that makes no sense man. The whole point is he represented a trend of "disaffected"(his word) southern conservatives who lost touch with the Democrat Party. This was the Southern Strategy, bringing in the disaffected southern conservative.

He specifically mentioned a "speech" which most likely had nothing to do with Southern Strategy, in Kansas. That's Midwest. As you know, Presidential candidates tailor their speeches to the demographics in a respective state during a campaign. It's been a long held practice. His party was moving too far to the left, Nixon didn't move them there, they moved themselves there after the Civil Rights Act. You cannot contend that the party's shift to the far left and his defection had anything to do with the Southern Strategy.

Once again, the Southern Strategy was an electoral strategy, not a political one. The strategy was specifically intended for VOTERS not POLITICIANS. You know that, I know that.

"An electoral strategy, not a political one"

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously. Pogo failed miserably. The troll brigade failed miserably. Is this how liberals are? Is this how they debate? Wow. Color me shocked. I though there were actually seriously minded liberals out there wanting to set the record straight. All I ran into was bunch of children in adults clothing.

I like how you ignored my break down of your op again. You have nothing and thus you are left with "look!, look! Nobody will debate me, I win!" There is nothing to debate, because your op is weak.
Foxfyre already played this game. Mac already played this game you attempting to pull off here it was moronic then and it's moronic now.