The latest Obama scandal

The Civil War may have officially ended back in 1865, but the animosity both sides have for each other continues to this day.

There are a lot of white folk, especially those in the Southern states, who hold on to their hatred for minorities and the North in general.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

 

Yeah, yeah, that's it! That's the ticket, yeah.

That post is either trolling or completely chowderheaded (most likely both), but I like it.

 

Like most comments that come from the far left, when they are repeated, they tend to sound foolish.

 

I think you'll find that the support for civil rights was not so much a party thing as it was geographical. It was generally supported in the North and opposed in Dixie (ergo, "Dixiecrats") regardless of what party one belonged to.

So how would you explain the fact that The Confederacy went from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one during the period from the 1960s to the 1980s and remains one today. What changed? You are quite right in that it would make no sense for southerners to shift their support to the Republicans if they thought that the Republican party was still the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction.

Yet they did and the Republicans were glad to have them and the Southerners didn't have to change their racial attitudes one bit. They didn't need to.

 

Here is what Davy boy conveniently and consistantly ignores. The southern democrats that were aligned with the much more liberal northern Democrats created an alliance or voting block for the Democrats. The southern Democrats bolted from the Democratic Party becuase of the northern Democrats inclusion of civil rights in their 1948 platform. It's not that the northern wing of the Democratic Party ever endorsed the racist southern ways but did tolerate them until it became impossible to be a Democrat and be aligned with a block of racist clan supporting states calling themselves Democrats. I agree completely that the more powerful northern Democrats should never have tolerated the alliance with the southern Democrats and of course the alliance fractured over their differences. Now here is the rub. It isn't like history just stopped when the southern Democrats jumped ship and allied themselves with the Republicans. They are still a bunch of racist A-holes that they always were but for over 50 have been tolerated by the Republicans, the same way they were tolerated by the Democrat. Davy boy's problem is that he see the racism of those southern states until the point that they joined the Republican Party, then he actually believes that even though the southern Democrats left their alliance with the northern Democrats over civil rights and became part of the Republican Party that opposed civil rights, they were somehow magically transformed into welcoming and enlightened non-racists now that they are part of the Republican Party in spite of all of the racism they still demonstrate since they switched alliances. It takes a real special kind of blinders to make that logical leap. Thank goodness we have little Davy boy to show us how ignorance can be an effective memory cleansing agent.

 

Strikes me as just a whole bunch of 'splaining, justifying and excuse making....when the truth is that the prominent democraps of the 1960's fought tooth & nail against segregation & Civil Rights.

 

Then you should easily be able to refute what I said but you can't, can you. The Southern Democratic racist voters, and racist voters in general, found the Democratic Party increasingly unsympathetic to their interests and over the course of about 20 years defected to the Republican party and the Republicans welcomed them with open arms. The Republican party depends heavily on the racist vote today and will, I believe, continue to do so.

 

It's the latter. Hard as it might be to credit, Davy is not a troll.

 

Prominent "southern" Democrats which for the last 50 years have been Republicans. Why did history stop for you in the 1960's? Just a whole bunch of ignoring the last 50 years to be exact. You can't seem to admit it ever but the truth is that the southern states are firmly the Republicans problem now. You won't even admit this very obvious fact because you can't admit to the racist southerners not changing their racism, only changing to a different political party that is willing to cater to their racism. It's what you don't say that is so telling. Don't worry, you're not fooling anyone. Your party owns the racists of the south these days even if you can't bring yourself to admit it and have to resort to talking about the 1960's as a desperate rationalization. You look completely foolish and you are a total joke if you really believe what you are saying. My guess is that your ego is too wrapped up in always being seen as right and that is why you feel the need to create your own version of history. How sad people like you are.

 

You make these statements as if they're fact but I haven't seen any evidence to support it other than what you & fog-of-war moen post. Who are some of these racist dems who found homes in the Republican party?

 

Little Davy has a very limited knowledge of actual history so he makes up history that fits his agenda. Sad pathetic little southerner.

Explainer: How Democrats and Republicans ‘switched sides’ on civil rights
By Robyn Pennacchia

I just about lost my damn mind this morning after coming across this piece from the National Review about how Barry Goldwater totally wasn’t all that racist or anything.
As a history nerd, this weird thing the Republicans are doing now where they are trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the civil rights movement is starting to drive me up the wall. Like, f’reals, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would not freaking be conservative Republicans today. For that matter, neither would Susan B. Anthony. It’s absolutely absurd. It doesn’t even sort of make sense because at all times throughout all history, all civil rights issues are progressive issues regardless of party alignment.
The fact of the matter is, both parties have undergone major changes throughout the past 150 years or so. Hell, within the last 40 years. In certain aspects, Richard Nixon would be way the hell to the left of today’s Democratic Party.
You can’t really look at the history of American politics through the lens of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of today’s parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of North and South, conservative and progressive.
Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner. Dude was a Democrat and super far to the left on most issues in his day. He was opposed to the Gold Standard, in favor of civil rights and labor rights, anti-war … but then was also in favor of prohibition and notoriously opposed to Darwin and teaching evolution. Where would he fit today? Pretty much nowhere. Then, you know, you had the crazy-ass southern Democrats who were super conservative on social issues and more progressive economically, because they benefited from farm subsidies. It was the same with the Republicans, many of whom were more socially liberal and economically conservative.

cont'ed

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/197...d-republicans-switched-sides-on-civil-rights/[/size]

 

Is that the best you've got? Some opinion piece by a far left loon without a single piece of proof? I'd say you guys are struggling to prove a false democrap narrative.

 

And the support for YOUR narrative is where? Seems to me like it kind of stops with the end of Reconstruction.

Okay, so when I get a few minute we'll take a look at a Rethug '80s icon or two and then who comprises the Rethugs today, both in leadership and in terms of voters. I doubt that I'll be showing you anything you didn't already know.

 

You two are funny. You level these false claims, in post after post, but the best proof either of you can offer are a couple of opinion pieces & an "I'll get back to you later" promise. Did you ever really put any thought into what you were posting before simply regurgitating the party line?

 

A few of the Southern Democrat politicians who switched parties during the era in question:

James Martin, Alabama
Claude Kirk, Florida
Howard Callaway, Georgia
Charlton Lyons, Louisiana
Roderick Miller, Louisiana
Dave Treen, Louisiana
Rubel Phillips, Mississippi
Charles Pickering, Mississippi
Jesse Helms, North Carolina
Strom Thurmond, South Carolina
Arthur Ravenel, South Carolina
James Byrnes, South Carolina
Floyd Spence, South Carolina
Marshall Parker, South Carolina
Albert Watson, South Carolia
Jack Cox, Texas

I can find more; it's not hard.

Please tell me I'm funny too, David. I do so crave your approval.

 

The KKK: good ol' boy republicans.

White supremacists: good ol' boy republicans.

 

Why would you crave anything from me?

 

We can add Jeff Davis fan Trent Lott to L'Emmerdeur's excellent list. Lott joined his fellow racists in 1972.
So now that L'Emmerdeur has accommodated you with a list of "racist dems who found homes in the Republican party," would you like some notes on the Republican Southern Strategy?

 

Most certainly chowder-headed, given the source.

 

Because you are such a lovely bumbling sack of putrid non-knowledge, of course.