Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Ame®icano]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who made decision to secede? Farmers? Trappers? Or politicians?

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.

You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.

Confederacy was political decision, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.

By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".

Now, name all political parties in the South at the time. Go.

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...

Russians, everywhere...

View attachment 305894

If you're not Russian, why are you deliberately writing like one?

It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...

If you're not faggot, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.

.
"Russian" is not name-calling. It's a simple observation of your writing, specifically your inability to handle articles.

TBH, I have no clue how that "the" remained there. As I said, I am at work during the day, and when I catch the break I try to reply to posts. Sometimes lose track and change sentences because of distractions or simply being in rush, etc. I don't have to explain myself to you, and I wont.

To make it clear, I am American, and to be honest again, if I had to chose I would rather be Russian than a Democrat. You keep doing what you're doing, it doesn't bother me at all. It's not your fault that you don't know better. You're simply leftist fuck behaving just as every leftist fuck does. Now, fuck off, faggot.

 

[anynameyouwish]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

MORE democrats voted for the 1964 CRA than republicans.


the problem with conservatives is that they KNOW so much that just aint so

 

[anynameyouwish]

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.

You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.

By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...

Russians, everywhere...

View attachment 305894

If you're not Russian, why are you deliberately writing like one?

It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...

If you're not faggot, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.

.
"Russian" is not name-calling. It's a simple observation of your writing, specifically your inability to handle articles.

TBH, I have no clue how that "the" remained there. As I said, I am at work during the day, and when I catch the break I try to reply to posts. Sometimes lose track and change sentences because of distractions or simply being in rush, etc. I don't have to explain myself to you, and I wont.

To make it clear, I am American, and to be honest again, if I had to chose I would rather be Russian than a Democrat. You keep doing what you're doing, it doesn't bother me at all. It's not your fault that you don't know better. You're simply leftist fuck behaving just as every leftist fuck does. Now, fuck off, faggot.

if you would rather be russian than a democrat than you are a despicable traitor.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

 

[Correll]

Well, I guess if you are general enough you can find some similarities.


Yes, in a war, both committed atrocities. Interestingly enough, in both examples, their enemies committed atrocities too. So, I don't know what you think you proved with that one.

Oh, right, you are just a monkey throwing shit against a wall.


Anyway, the two situations were massively different, so only a fucking moron would be surprised to see that the situations evolved differently over time.

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

 

[Correll]

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

The South formed a nation that was 40 percent in slavery. They designed that Confederation to ensure those people remained in slavery

Which in no way supports his position. Do you even know what conversation you are in?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

It's the inhumane treatment that both suffered. Study the history of the treatment that slaves endured and you night learn something. Well never mind folks like you probably thought it was a good thing.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I remember I asked days ago....what ideology "Conservative" or "Liberal" was the dominant ideology in FAVOR of maintaining slavery, opposing re-construction and then continuing to oppose future emancipation efforts -- no answers yet....

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I remember I asked days ago....what ideology "Conservative" or "Liberal" was the dominant ideology in FAVOR of maintaining slavery, opposing re-construction and then continuing to oppose future emancipation efforts -- no answers yet....

Conservative.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I remember I asked days ago....what ideology "Conservative" or "Liberal" was the dominant ideology in FAVOR of maintaining slavery, opposing re-construction and then continuing to oppose future emancipation efforts -- no answers yet....

Conservative.

Correct.

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

 

[Ame®icano]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

MORE democrats voted for the 1964 CRA than republicans.


the problem with conservatives is that they KNOW so much that just aint so

When you put it that way, more Democrats voted against CRA than Republicans.

Reason for that is because there were more Democrats than Republicans in House and Senate.

If you look at percentage, it's different story. Or if you look by region, 87 Southern Democrats voted against, vs. 10 Southern Republicans.

Also, you took that quote from Reagan, and it applies to Liberals. But you already know that.

 

[Ame®icano]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

 

[rightwinger]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

The voters switched parties

They switched from electing only Democrats to electing only Republicans

 

[Ame®icano]

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

The voters switched parties

When?

 

[rightwinger]

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

The voters switched parties

When?

Beginning in the late 60s and culminating with Reagan

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Along with the evil that was done to them.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms for starters.

 

[xyz]

Trump has received the most black votes of any president besides Jefferson Davis.