Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Six of Top Ten Richest in Congress are Democrats
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Nov 22, 2015, 9:56:46 AM11/22/15
to
Although Democrats like to talk about unfair wealth inequality in
America, six of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats and
the poorest member is a Republican.
The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics published its annual
review of changes in the net worth of Congress and found that at the
end of 2014, the 534 members of Senate and House had a total net worth
of $4.4 billion, up from $4.3 billion the year before.
The ten richest members of in Congress are Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA),
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Jack K. Delaney (D-
MD), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Dave Trott (R-MI), Vernon Buchanan (R-
FL), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen.
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)4% It took wealth of just under $100 million
to be in the two-percenter club.
Democrat Representative Jared Polis of Colorado saw the biggest jump of
any member of Congress in 2014. His wealth jumped by $171 million to
$387,864,321.
The top 53 members controlled “80 percent of the estimated wealth held
by all federal lawmakers in 2014.” This is actually more skewed than
the United States as a whole, where the top ten percent of households
control about 75 percent of all wealth, according to CNN.
A little over half of members of Congress saw their average net worth
increase in 2014, but on average their median net worth rose about 6.7
percent to $1,098,508. That is still about 20 times more than the
typical $56,355 of the average American family.
Senators on average have always been richer than members of the House
of Representatives. The 2014 median net worth of a Senator was $2.9
million, versus $860,005 for a member of the House.
Members of Congress have not received a cost-of-living pay increase
since January 2009, when “wages” were increased from $169,300 to
$174,000. That still places all the Democrat and Republican members of
Congress in the top 7 percent of wage earners.
The poorest member of Congress is Rep. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)(R-CA),
whose net worth is a negative $25 million, due to heavy indebtedness
from trying to save his dairy farms. But Valadao is not alone: 20
members of Congress declared more liabilities than assets.
--
The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:
Moochers, parasites, and Obama.
America, six of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats and
the poorest member is a Republican.
The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics published its annual
review of changes in the net worth of Congress and found that at the
end of 2014, the 534 members of Senate and House had a total net worth
of $4.4 billion, up from $4.3 billion the year before.
The ten richest members of in Congress are Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA),
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Jack K. Delaney (D-
MD), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Dave Trott (R-MI), Vernon Buchanan (R-
FL), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Sen.
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)4% It took wealth of just under $100 million
to be in the two-percenter club.
Democrat Representative Jared Polis of Colorado saw the biggest jump of
any member of Congress in 2014. His wealth jumped by $171 million to
$387,864,321.
The top 53 members controlled “80 percent of the estimated wealth held
by all federal lawmakers in 2014.” This is actually more skewed than
the United States as a whole, where the top ten percent of households
control about 75 percent of all wealth, according to CNN.
A little over half of members of Congress saw their average net worth
increase in 2014, but on average their median net worth rose about 6.7
percent to $1,098,508. That is still about 20 times more than the
typical $56,355 of the average American family.
Senators on average have always been richer than members of the House
of Representatives. The 2014 median net worth of a Senator was $2.9
million, versus $860,005 for a member of the House.
Members of Congress have not received a cost-of-living pay increase
since January 2009, when “wages” were increased from $169,300 to
$174,000. That still places all the Democrat and Republican members of
Congress in the top 7 percent of wage earners.
The poorest member of Congress is Rep. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)(R-CA),
whose net worth is a negative $25 million, due to heavy indebtedness
from trying to save his dairy farms. But Valadao is not alone: 20
members of Congress declared more liabilities than assets.
--
The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:
Moochers, parasites, and Obama.
clairbear
Nov 26, 2015, 1:12:49 PM11/26/15
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote in news:n00rvr$cf9$2...@dont-email.me:
And the Dem hypocrisy suprises you?
Sn...@smack.com
Nov 26, 2015, 3:14:30 PM11/26/15
to
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:12:47 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
>
>And the Dem hypocrisy suprises you?
You idiot
Being "rich" isn't the fucking issue
But USING wealth, and USING political power BY those who inherit (or
MAYBE even earn it)---is.
The Republican/ conservative goals have NOTHING to do with the bottom
2/3rds of the American electorate.
NOTHING
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
wrote:
>
>And the Dem hypocrisy suprises you?
Being "rich" isn't the fucking issue
But USING wealth, and USING political power BY those who inherit (or
MAYBE even earn it)---is.
The Republican/ conservative goals have NOTHING to do with the bottom
2/3rds of the American electorate.
NOTHING
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
clairbear
Nov 29, 2015, 10:04:43 PM11/29/15
to
Was Woodrow Wilson a key founder of modern liberalism, a visionary whose
belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the New Deal
and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
Or was he a virulent and unrepentant racist, a man who not only
segregated the federal work force but nationalized the Southern view of
politics, turning the federal government itself into an instrument of
white supremacy for decades to come?
Wilson's record on race has long been debated among historians. But in
the past two weeks, the topic has burst into broader view, thanks to
student protesters at Princeton who have demanded, among other things,
that the former president's name be removed from its prestigious Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
The protests have prompted a fierce round of op-eds and Facebook
discussions, and not a few laments that few historical figures would be
deemed pure enough to have their names inscribed on walls in today's
heated atmosphere. (What's next, more than one Twitter wag asked, a
demand to take the name of George Washington, a slave owner, off the
nation's capitol?)
The debate comes amid a flurry of continuing renaming controversies on
various campuses, including Georgetown, which recently announced that it
was removing from campus buildings the names of two of its former
presidents who had been involved in selling slaves, and Yale, which is
hotly debating whether to rename a residential college named for John C.
Calhoun, one of the 19th-century's foremost defenders of slavery.
But the controversy over Wilson strikes closer to home for many liberal-
leaning historians and scholars, threatening a symbol whose broader
vision many would wish to defend, while raising the uncomfortable
question of whether Wilson's racism constitutes a blot on his record or
an integral feature of the progressive tradition he helped to found.
"The irony here is that Wilson really is the architect of a lot of
modern liberalism," said Julian E. Zlizer, a professor of history and
public affairs at Princeton. "The tradition that runs through F.D.R. to
L.B.J. and Obama really starts with his administration."
Wilson has long been a favorite target of conservatives like Glenn Beck,
who has blamed him for everything from overweening government to Nazi
eugenics. Shortly after the Princeton protests, a writer for the
Federalist, a conservative website, praised the students for targeting
"an authoritarian hatemonger who also happened to be one of the most
destructive presidents in the history of the United States."
Scholars, however, have generally taken a more sanguine view. Polls,
like one earlier this year of several hundred members of the American
Political Science Association, often rank him in the top 10 United
States presidents. Defenders tick off a list of his accomplishments,
including his leadership in World War I (he won the 1919 Nobel Peace
Prize) and advocacy for national self-determination in international
relations and, on the domestic front, the creation of the Federal
Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the graduated income tax, and new
antitrust and labor laws.
"Going to the mat for Wilson should not be hard," said David Greenberg,
a historian at Rutgers University. "If your standards are liberal
progressive values in general, Wilson deserves to be celebrated."
While the segregation of the federal government during his
administration "deserves to be deplored," Mr. Greenberg added,
evaluating Wilson solely by his record on race "stacks the deck."
But other scholars counter that Wilson's racism cannot be neatly cleaved
off from his broader program, or from the broader political tradition he
helped found.
"Historians usually say, 'Here was this amazing liberal progressive who
was a racist, which is too bad, now let's go back to talking about the
good things,'" said Eric S. Yellin, an associate professor at the
University of Richmond and the author of "Racism in the Nation's
Service," a study of the segregation of the federal work force under
Wilson.
"But it's important to see that Wilson had a whites-only progressive
view," Mr. Yellin said.
Wilson's attitudes and record on race, even his staunchest defenders
agree, is hardly a pretty one. As president of Princeton, the Virginia-
born scholar discouraged an African-American prospective student from
applying, calling it "altogether inadvisable for a colored man to enter
Princeton." His textbook "A History of the American People" referred to
Reconstruction-era efforts to free the South from "the incubus of that
ignorant and often hostile" black vote. As governor of New Jersey, his
administration included no blacks.
After his election to the White House in 1912, Wilson, a Democrat,
appointed a cabinet that was heavy on Southern racists, including
William McAdoo as treasury secretary and Albert Burleson as postmaster
general, both of whom quickly pushed to segregate their departments,
demoting and firing many blacks.
Wilson, who also nominated an African-American for register of the
Treasury (the nomination was withdrawn after Southern Democrats in the
Senate raised a furor), did not spearhead those efforts, though he did
go along with them, noted John Milton Cooper, a retired historian at the
University of Wisconsin and the author of an admiring 2009 biography of
Wilson.
"Trying to make Wilson into this gung-ho, committed white supremacist is
just wrong," Mr. Cooper said.
But other historians say the matter ran much deeper than Wilson's
personal feelings or intentions. Nathan Connolly, a visiting associate
professor of history at New York University, said that while Wilson may
not have spearheaded the segregation initiatives (which were not
reversed by his Republican successors), when criticized for them by
black leaders and others he "doubled down," rationalizing segregation as
a strategy to keep the racial peace and a benefit to blacks themselves.
"It's important to remember that Jim Crow segregation was itself a
Progressive Era reform," said Mr. Connolly, the author of "A World More
Concrete: Real Estate and the Remaking of Jim Crow South Florida."
And Wilson's racism, Mr. Connolly said, didn't stop at the nation's
borders. The president's vision of national self-determination, he
noted, did not extend to Haiti, the occupation of which Wilson
authorized in 1915, partly to replace a national constitution that
forbade foreigners to own land.
"Even the internationalism that people want to credit him with was
deeply inflected by animus towards black people," Mr. Connolly said.
How to evaluate Wilson's historical legacy and whether to give him a
place of honor on campus are different questions. And there, even some
who support keeping Wilson's name on the policy school credit students
with starting an important conversation.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former dean of the Wilson School, wrote on
Facebook that when Christopher Eisgruber, Princeton's president, said
that he would start a process to consider whether to rename the school,
she thought it was "a crazy decision."
But Ms. Slaughter, now the president and chief executive of the
nonpartisan think tank New America, said she had come to see the value
of the debate itself, if not the removal of his name.
"It seems to me much more in keeping with values of liberal education
that you keep the name and render the whole person, so you have to
simultaneously confront that many great people have dark sides," she
said.
Mr. Connolly said it might be more constructive to leave Wilson's name
on the school but build, say, a monument to the occupation of Haiti in
front.
The important thing, Mr. Connolly said, "is to write segregation and
race into the story, not to write racists out of it."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woodrow-wilson%e2%80%99s-legacy-gets-
complicated/ar-AAfNFYS?li=BBnb7Kz
belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the New Deal
and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
Or was he a virulent and unrepentant racist, a man who not only
segregated the federal work force but nationalized the Southern view of
politics, turning the federal government itself into an instrument of
white supremacy for decades to come?
Wilson's record on race has long been debated among historians. But in
the past two weeks, the topic has burst into broader view, thanks to
student protesters at Princeton who have demanded, among other things,
that the former president's name be removed from its prestigious Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
The protests have prompted a fierce round of op-eds and Facebook
discussions, and not a few laments that few historical figures would be
deemed pure enough to have their names inscribed on walls in today's
heated atmosphere. (What's next, more than one Twitter wag asked, a
demand to take the name of George Washington, a slave owner, off the
nation's capitol?)
The debate comes amid a flurry of continuing renaming controversies on
various campuses, including Georgetown, which recently announced that it
was removing from campus buildings the names of two of its former
presidents who had been involved in selling slaves, and Yale, which is
hotly debating whether to rename a residential college named for John C.
Calhoun, one of the 19th-century's foremost defenders of slavery.
But the controversy over Wilson strikes closer to home for many liberal-
leaning historians and scholars, threatening a symbol whose broader
vision many would wish to defend, while raising the uncomfortable
question of whether Wilson's racism constitutes a blot on his record or
an integral feature of the progressive tradition he helped to found.
"The irony here is that Wilson really is the architect of a lot of
modern liberalism," said Julian E. Zlizer, a professor of history and
public affairs at Princeton. "The tradition that runs through F.D.R. to
L.B.J. and Obama really starts with his administration."
Wilson has long been a favorite target of conservatives like Glenn Beck,
who has blamed him for everything from overweening government to Nazi
eugenics. Shortly after the Princeton protests, a writer for the
Federalist, a conservative website, praised the students for targeting
"an authoritarian hatemonger who also happened to be one of the most
destructive presidents in the history of the United States."
Scholars, however, have generally taken a more sanguine view. Polls,
like one earlier this year of several hundred members of the American
Political Science Association, often rank him in the top 10 United
States presidents. Defenders tick off a list of his accomplishments,
including his leadership in World War I (he won the 1919 Nobel Peace
Prize) and advocacy for national self-determination in international
relations and, on the domestic front, the creation of the Federal
Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the graduated income tax, and new
antitrust and labor laws.
"Going to the mat for Wilson should not be hard," said David Greenberg,
a historian at Rutgers University. "If your standards are liberal
progressive values in general, Wilson deserves to be celebrated."
While the segregation of the federal government during his
administration "deserves to be deplored," Mr. Greenberg added,
evaluating Wilson solely by his record on race "stacks the deck."
But other scholars counter that Wilson's racism cannot be neatly cleaved
off from his broader program, or from the broader political tradition he
helped found.
"Historians usually say, 'Here was this amazing liberal progressive who
was a racist, which is too bad, now let's go back to talking about the
good things,'" said Eric S. Yellin, an associate professor at the
University of Richmond and the author of "Racism in the Nation's
Service," a study of the segregation of the federal work force under
Wilson.
"But it's important to see that Wilson had a whites-only progressive
view," Mr. Yellin said.
Wilson's attitudes and record on race, even his staunchest defenders
agree, is hardly a pretty one. As president of Princeton, the Virginia-
born scholar discouraged an African-American prospective student from
applying, calling it "altogether inadvisable for a colored man to enter
Princeton." His textbook "A History of the American People" referred to
Reconstruction-era efforts to free the South from "the incubus of that
ignorant and often hostile" black vote. As governor of New Jersey, his
administration included no blacks.
After his election to the White House in 1912, Wilson, a Democrat,
appointed a cabinet that was heavy on Southern racists, including
William McAdoo as treasury secretary and Albert Burleson as postmaster
general, both of whom quickly pushed to segregate their departments,
demoting and firing many blacks.
Wilson, who also nominated an African-American for register of the
Treasury (the nomination was withdrawn after Southern Democrats in the
Senate raised a furor), did not spearhead those efforts, though he did
go along with them, noted John Milton Cooper, a retired historian at the
University of Wisconsin and the author of an admiring 2009 biography of
Wilson.
"Trying to make Wilson into this gung-ho, committed white supremacist is
just wrong," Mr. Cooper said.
But other historians say the matter ran much deeper than Wilson's
personal feelings or intentions. Nathan Connolly, a visiting associate
professor of history at New York University, said that while Wilson may
not have spearheaded the segregation initiatives (which were not
reversed by his Republican successors), when criticized for them by
black leaders and others he "doubled down," rationalizing segregation as
a strategy to keep the racial peace and a benefit to blacks themselves.
"It's important to remember that Jim Crow segregation was itself a
Progressive Era reform," said Mr. Connolly, the author of "A World More
Concrete: Real Estate and the Remaking of Jim Crow South Florida."
And Wilson's racism, Mr. Connolly said, didn't stop at the nation's
borders. The president's vision of national self-determination, he
noted, did not extend to Haiti, the occupation of which Wilson
authorized in 1915, partly to replace a national constitution that
forbade foreigners to own land.
"Even the internationalism that people want to credit him with was
deeply inflected by animus towards black people," Mr. Connolly said.
How to evaluate Wilson's historical legacy and whether to give him a
place of honor on campus are different questions. And there, even some
who support keeping Wilson's name on the policy school credit students
with starting an important conversation.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former dean of the Wilson School, wrote on
Facebook that when Christopher Eisgruber, Princeton's president, said
that he would start a process to consider whether to rename the school,
she thought it was "a crazy decision."
But Ms. Slaughter, now the president and chief executive of the
nonpartisan think tank New America, said she had come to see the value
of the debate itself, if not the removal of his name.
"It seems to me much more in keeping with values of liberal education
that you keep the name and render the whole person, so you have to
simultaneously confront that many great people have dark sides," she
said.
Mr. Connolly said it might be more constructive to leave Wilson's name
on the school but build, say, a monument to the occupation of Haiti in
front.
The important thing, Mr. Connolly said, "is to write segregation and
race into the story, not to write racists out of it."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woodrow-wilson%e2%80%99s-legacy-gets-
complicated/ar-AAfNFYS?li=BBnb7Kz
Milton Keynes
Dec 7, 2015, 11:22:13 AM12/7/15
to
"clairbear" wrote in message
news:XnsA561E0947...@216.166.97.142...
> Was Woodrow Wilson a key founder of modern liberalism, a visionary whose
> belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the New Deal and
> the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
the Democratic Party in the 1970s and became part of Nixon's southern
strategy. In the early part of the 20th century, the GOP was still the party
of Lincoln, even if that legacy played a minor role to the party's ultimate
goal of cheap labor. As an example, following Wilson, Harding integrated the
federal civil service. By time the Great Depression rolled around the GOP
ignored civil rights completely and reverted to its reason for existence
which was to import labor from the South which was cheaper than Irish
immigrants.
The real groundwork to the New Deal was created by Al Smith in New York.
Roosevelt, to Smith's dismay, copied and expanded on Smith's formula. The
New Deal led to a great deal of animosity between Smith and FDR with Smith
claiming FDR stole his thunder.
clairbear
Dec 7, 2015, 5:18:20 PM12/7/15
to
"Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:n44bj1$7ft$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "clairbear" wrote in message
> news:XnsA561E0947...@216.166.97.142...
>
>> Was Woodrow Wilson a key founder of modern liberalism, a visionary
>> whose belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the
>> New Deal and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
>
> Wilson was another southern Democrat like the shit that was kicked out
> of the Democratic Party in the 1970s and became part of Nixon's
> southern strategy. In the early part of the 20th century, the GOP was
> still the party of Lincoln, even if that legacy played a minor role to
> the party's ultimate goal of cheap labor. As an example, following
> Wilson, Harding integrated the federal civil service. By time the
> Great Depression rolled around the GOP ignored civil rights completely
Gee I guess that's why Eisenhower forced the first steps at school
intigration.
news:n44bj1$7ft$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "clairbear" wrote in message
> news:XnsA561E0947...@216.166.97.142...
>
>> Was Woodrow Wilson a key founder of modern liberalism, a visionary
>> whose belief in an activist presidency laid the groundwork for the
>> New Deal and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s?
>
> Wilson was another southern Democrat like the shit that was kicked out
> of the Democratic Party in the 1970s and became part of Nixon's
> southern strategy. In the early part of the 20th century, the GOP was
> still the party of Lincoln, even if that legacy played a minor role to
> the party's ultimate goal of cheap labor. As an example, following
> Wilson, Harding integrated the federal civil service. By time the
> Great Depression rolled around the GOP ignored civil rights completely
intigration.
Topaz
Dec 7, 2015, 5:38:14 PM12/7/15
to
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because
the originally creative race died out, as a result of the
contamination on the blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art,
science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is
almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very
fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who
founded a superior type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of
the native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the
exterenal features of the country, which features strike the eye of
European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us;
but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the
enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America,
that is to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated natioanal character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take
up a revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded
as revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be
determined by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries,
but only by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In
doing this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a
clearer insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to
the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do
no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquility, so
that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very
high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of
humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
First Post
Dec 7, 2015, 6:59:22 PM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
><Complete fabrication of facts and outright lies snipped>
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery,
and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party
fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th
Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican
support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries
about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One
can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats
had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny
how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given
that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to
endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly
pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by
Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After
Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in
Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and
Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves,
passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful
to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And
shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party
fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the
Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves
and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with
them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the
US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower
pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's
primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none
other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his
position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher
percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans
and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched"
on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South
began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican
dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While
it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the
Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and
integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party
-- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes
no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will
inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu
maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats
(slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all
the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the
Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ
in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided
liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they
have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it
is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really
nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political
lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic
Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans
are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of
being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to
Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious
values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline
support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its
promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing
with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on
civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable
political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had
overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national
Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as
dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a
famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same
time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy
of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly
what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90
percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's
Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low
as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal
Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black
sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like
Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes
on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime,
blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not
even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone?
Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal
Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than
almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst
academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack
Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC
public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are
good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in
killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC,
effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in
those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers
unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not
only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that
African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of
white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the
openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
wrote:
><Complete fabrication of facts and outright lies snipped>
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery,
and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party
fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th
Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican
support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries
about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One
can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats
had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny
how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given
that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to
endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly
pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by
Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After
Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in
Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and
Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves,
passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful
to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And
shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party
fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the
Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves
and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with
them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the
US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower
pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's
primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none
other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his
position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher
percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans
and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched"
on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
strategy as greedy racists.
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South
began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican
dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While
it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the
Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and
integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party
-- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes
no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will
inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu
maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats
(slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all
the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the
Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ
in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided
liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they
have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it
is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really
nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political
lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic
Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans
are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of
being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to
Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious
values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline
support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its
promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing
with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on
civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable
political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had
overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national
Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as
dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a
famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same
time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
racism.
From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy
of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly
what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90
percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's
Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low
as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
Most major American city governments have been run by liberal
Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black
sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like
Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes
on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime,
blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not
even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone?
Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
Republicans for their problems!
Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal
Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than
almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst
academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack
Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC
public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are
good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in
killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC,
effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in
those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers
unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not
only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that
African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of
white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the
openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
Milton Keynes
Dec 7, 2015, 7:53:56 PM12/7/15
to
"clairbear" wrote in message
news:XnsA569AFFE8...@216.166.97.142...
>Gee I guess that's why Eisenhower forced the first steps at school
>intigration.
Democrats. Pres. Eisenhower stood for the same things as did the FDR
administration.
And speaking of Ike, which GOP politicians would say this:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193494630796/
Milton Keynes
Dec 7, 2015, 7:53:56 PM12/7/15
to
"First Post" wrote in message
news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
> Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery,
and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
Thank you for a sample of the term BULLSHIT.
and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
Fact: The GOP was founded by New England mill owners looking for a source of
labor that was cheaper than Irish immigrants. To put it another way, who do
you think FINANCED Lincoln's campaign? Clue: It wasn't Lincoln.
Milton Keynes
Dec 7, 2015, 7:53:57 PM12/7/15
to
"First Post" wrote in message
news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
bullshit obliterated)
Fact this alleged person "First Post" appears to be too stupid to write her
own material. Perhaps when she completes her GED studies she will be able to
write a paragraph without plagiarizing anyone else. Here's the original
dose bullshit:
https://www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/10152802035376524
Black Lies Matter
Dec 8, 2015, 3:29:10 AM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:53:00 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
the absolute truth of the piece.
Apparently the only original thought you can add is "if I don't like
the truth, the truth is bullshit."
wrote:
>"First Post" wrote in message
>news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
So he committed the faux pas of not attributing. It doesn't change
>"First Post" wrote in message
>news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
the absolute truth of the piece.
Apparently the only original thought you can add is "if I don't like
the truth, the truth is bullshit."
clairbear
Dec 8, 2015, 6:00:38 AM12/8/15
to
"Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:n459ig$v6$1@dont-
email.me:
You litards just love revisionist history
email.me:
Governor Swill
Dec 8, 2015, 10:56:07 AM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 16:18:20 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
Eisenhower didn't do that, the SCOTUS did. He enforced the ruling.
Swill
--
The Democratic Party makes me ashamed to be an American.
The Republican Party makes me ashamed to be a human being. - Clave
wrote:
Swill
--
The Democratic Party makes me ashamed to be an American.
The Republican Party makes me ashamed to be a human being. - Clave
Governor Swill
Dec 8, 2015, 10:59:08 AM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 "Milton Keynes" wrote:
>"clairbear" wrote
My favorite quote from that link is, "Science is a lie straight from
the pit of hell." - Paul Brown (R-GA)
>"clairbear" wrote
>>Gee I guess that's why Eisenhower forced the first steps at school
>>intigration.
>
>Probably more like the reason the Eisenhower family members are now
>Democrats. Pres. Eisenhower stood for the same things as did the FDR
>administration.
>
>And speaking of Ike, which GOP politicians would say this:
>
>https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193494630796/
*chuckle*
>>intigration.
>
>Probably more like the reason the Eisenhower family members are now
>Democrats. Pres. Eisenhower stood for the same things as did the FDR
>administration.
>
>And speaking of Ike, which GOP politicians would say this:
>
>https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193494630796/
My favorite quote from that link is, "Science is a lie straight from
the pit of hell." - Paul Brown (R-GA)
Governor Swill
Dec 8, 2015, 1:46:05 PM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:59:18 -0600, First Post
<Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>><Complete fabrication of facts and outright lies snipped>
If it really was complete fabrication and outright lies, you'd have
<Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>><Complete fabrication of facts and outright lies snipped>
left it in for all to see.
*text restored*
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery,
>and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
That was 150 years ago. What are they doing now?
>and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
The GOP was also founded to assert federal authority over states'
rights and reestablish national banking and currency standards to the
benefit of business. The GOP were the inheritors of the Whigs and
Federalists. Yeah, that's right, the founding of the GOP was based on
the ascendance of Washington, national regulation and the suppression
of states' rights. Slavery and civil rights were the wedge issues of
the day intended to unite disparate anti Democrats and drive voters to
the polls.
The GOP has been by turns liberal and conservative, supporting and
denying minority rights, for and against regulation. The ONE thing
that has always been the hallmark of the GOP has been its steadfast
support for business and even that got a shakeup before WW I.
>The Democratic Party
>fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th
>Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican
>support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
dominated by Protestant churches. That shoe is on the Republican foot
these days.
>Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries
>about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example.
pieces. It's well known that the Dems were the followers of Jackson
and centered in the south. The only thing I see being denied by
anybody is modern Republicans denying their party is no longer liberal
- that it is in fact the GOP that has taken the mantle of conservatism
from the Dems who, in their turn, have become the liberal party of the
nation.
>One
>can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
>about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
>it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
>opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
>for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
GOP embraces hard line rightists and bigots and states' rights. The
party core used to be the liberal north, now it's in the conservative
south, the bastion and center of race hate.
Put it another way. In the 19th century, conservatives supported
slavery and liberals opposed it. That is still true today.
Conservatives welcome bigots to their ranks, liberals do not.
The difference is that libs and cons alike jumped ship and switched
parties in the 20th century.
>Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats
>had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
>would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny
>how that works.
because those roles don't apply to today's world. Today it's the Reps
who are conservative and embrace votes from racists and the Dems who
are liberal and have no use for haters. 150 years ago, the opposite
was true, the Dems were conservative and the Reps were liberal.
You're arguing for a conservative view that includes racial bias by
falsely assigning racial ideology to the wrong party. That is, your
argument is a century and a half out of date.
>Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given
>that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to
>endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
just as soon reverse that progress as to let them move into their
neighborhoods.
>Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
century even conservative churches will be teaching why it was the
right thing to do for Jesus.
>Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly
>pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by
>Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After
>Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in
>Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and
>Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
>century.
paragraph.
>Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves,
>passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
>passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress.
>
>Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful
>to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution?
>And
>shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party
>fiercely opposed it?
who support minority rights and personal liberty while the Reps stand
for status quo and conformity?
>Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the
>Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves
>and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with
>them.
>
>Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
>depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
>founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
>constantly on those shows.
mantra-like enough to suit you, bear in mind that's because the
parties have shifted so dramatically on this particular issue over the
past 175 or so years. In effect, it's unfair to paint Democrats as
racist haters because they not. They *were*, but not anymore. By the
same token, it's unfair to hold Republicans up as shining examples of
freedom, fairness and the color blind way of life because that simply
isn't true. Today's GOP is the party of conservative white males.
It's the only demographic they can count on at the polls.
>Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the
>US military and promoted civil rights for minorities.
"Executive Order 9981 was an executive order issued on July 26, 1948,
by President Harry S. Truman. It abolished racial discrimination in
the United States Armed Forces and eventually led to the end of
segregation in the services.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
In that same year, the south, which had voted solidly Democratic for
over a century, split (between Truman and Thurmond's segregationist
platform) and *never again* voted as a Democratic block. Coincidence?
>Eisenhower
>pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
enjoyed control of both Houses and would in the next election gain a
filibuster proof Senate that would last an entire decade. It's
difficult to see how a Republican President "pushed through"
legislation you claim the opposition party ardently opposed when that
opposition completely controlled the legislative process.
>One of Eisenhower's
>primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none
>other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
>LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his
>position and supported the 1957 Act.
historical behavior, yet you are guilty of it yourself. In 1957, the
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/
More than half the Dems in the House and nearly two thirds in the
Senate voted for CRA1957.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Yet you say Eisenhower "pushed" it through?
>Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher
>percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
>In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
>Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans
>and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
in a session in which the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate. Iow, if
every Republican in Congress had abstained, CRA1964 would still have
passed with a veto proof majority. If the Dems had not wanted it
passed, they simply would have not allowed it out of committee. If it
got somehow out of committee, the filibuster proof Senate could have
shut it down. But the majority of Dems DID want CRA passed - two
thirds of them.
CRA1964 was originally written and sent to Congress by JFK (who was
not a Republican). President, Johnson, who you note above tried to
stop CRA1957 (but really didn't), strongly supported it.
Had the Dems wished to keep that legislation off the floor of both
Houses, they could easily have done so.
Yet more than two thirds of Democrats voted for the bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
>Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched"
>on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
>subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
>government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
>cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
>strategy as greedy racists.
>Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South
>began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican
>dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While
>it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the
>Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and
>integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party
>-- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes
>no sense whatsoever.
bastion of racism and whose Congress Critters, including the Reps,
voted universally against CRA. Yes, that's right, while a few
southern Dems voted for CRA, not one southern Republican did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
>Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will
>inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
>Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu
>maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats
>(slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all
>the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the
>Democrats! That's quite a feat!
had voted Democrat in every Presidential election since Andrew
Jackson. But after Truman integrated the military, that all changed.
The last time in history the south voted as a bloc for a Democrat was
in 1944 to vote for FDR. In 1948 they split between Dems and Strom
Thurmond's segregationist ticket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948
In every other year since, the south has either split or voted
Republican. Notably, in 1964 the only states the Republicans took
were LA, MS, AL, GA, SC and Goldwater's home state of Arizona.
From 1972, the south has always voted as a bloc for Republicans except
for the Carter and Clinton splits.
>It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act
>of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
>Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
>racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
>Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
>his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
>states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
>with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ
>in a landslide.
racist?
>But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided
>liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they
>have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it
>is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really
>nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political
>lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic
>Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
>Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
>Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
>trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
>say the least.
South. Look at the convention floor of any GOP convention of the past
few decades. It's an ocean of white when compared to the spectrum of
color and gender at the Dem conventions.
The GOP might not be fairly labeled a racist party, but the fact
remains that when racists vote, they vote Republican.
>Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans
>are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
>more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
>assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
>a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of
>being repeated so many times.
party membership and initiatives to end legislation intended to help
equalize the playing field for blacks.
>A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to
>Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
>that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious
>values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline
>support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its
>promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
shift to secularism in the party became popular.
By line item: If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would
have always been legal. I support prayer in public schools only so
long as prayers are offered for every religion extant. Your use of
the term "gay agenda" betrays your bigotry. All homos want is the
same thing everybody else is entitled to. The right to live their
lives without fear.
>In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing
>with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on
>civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable
>political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had
>overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national
>Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as
>dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a
>famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
>those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same
>time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
>innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
>racism.
passed, not one single southern Republican voted for it. Not one. It
did get a few Democratic votes though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
I bet you still don't get it though. Civil rights has always been a
regional issue and unchanged. Partisanship has changed.
Which is to say, the south has always opposed civil rights for blacks
regardless of party affiliation.
>From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy
>of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly
>what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90
>percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
>benefits and welfare programs.
white.
>And what is the result? Before LBJ's
>Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low
>as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
them catch up to the mainstream. Unfortunately, the behavior of
individuals cannot be legislated and no matter what the govt does, non
whites and females continue to face discrimination from a white male
class jealous of its privileges even as they slip away.
The continued incarceration of black males for even minor and non
violent offenses is a major contributor to this. With a felony on
one's record, it's virtually impossible to get a decent job. And in
the war-on-drug mentality we've been in since the early eighties,
selling a joint to a friend was a felony in most states.
Our prisons are filled with hundreds of thousands of non violent,
minor drug offenders carrying decades long sentences.
If you're white and get caught selling a rock, you get smacked about a
bit and sent home. If you're black and get caught selling a rock, you
go to jail for twenty years to life.
The criminal justice system is just another means of systemically
destroying black lives and opportunities.
>Most major American city governments have been run by liberal
>Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black
>sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like
>Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes
>on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime,
>blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not
>even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone?
>Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
>Republicans for their problems!
showing. It wasn't Democratic administration that ran Detroit into
the ground - it was gross mismanagement of the auto industry by the
Big Three Automakers that did it. Detroit's economy was based on
automobile manufacturing. GM, Ford and Chrysler ostriched themselves
for decades. GM's share of the domestic car market in 1965 was
greater than the entire domestic auto industry's share of it now.
All across the Republican north, for make no mistake, the north was
the core of the party from its inception, urban economies collapsed as
one industry after another failed to compete effectively against
foreign competitors. Steel, cars, electronics. By 1993 there was
only one TV manufacturer in the US - Zenith - and they had only one US
plant.
It is no longer possible to purchase a TV that's made in America. All
our favorite toys, smartphones, DVD players, computers, furniture,
home appliances are made abroad or from components made from abroad.
And interestingly enough, as Republican power in govt has increased
over the past forty years, it's just gotten worse.
>Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal
>Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than
>almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst
>academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack
>Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC
>public schools, of course
wealthy and privileged and those in the school voucher program much
prefer private schools.
> -- but he assures us that those schools are
>good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in
>killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC,
>effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in
>those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers
>unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
>A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
>perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
>antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not
>only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that
>African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
>level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of
>white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the
>openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
about affirmative action proves this.
Conduct this experiment. Look at Republican gatherings, especially
conventions. Compare what you see to the same view of Democratic
gatherings.
Consider this: Hardworking immigrants from Asia and Latin America
*should* be firmly in the GOP voting block. Both have conservative
social values, both are heavily into owning their own businesses and
yet both of these groups vote solidly, reliably Democratic and the
numbers are just getting bigger. In 2004, George Bush took 27% of the
Latino vote. By 2012, Mitt Romney got only 14% and the some trend is
seen in Asian voting patterns. And females. And the young.
The GOP has one reliable voting bloc. Just one. White males.
Instead of wondering why this shouldn't be, try looking at why it
*is*.
Governor Swill
Dec 8, 2015, 1:54:07 PM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 "Milton Keynes" wrote:
>"First Post" wrote
with which he's already in agreement rather than allowing his beliefs
and preconceptions to be challenged by facts.
>"First Post" wrote
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 "Milton Keynes" wrote:
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
>
>Fact this alleged person "First Post" appears to be too stupid to write her
>own material. Perhaps when she completes her GED studies she will be able to
>write a paragraph without plagiarizing anyone else. Here's the original
>dose bullshit:
>
>https://www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/10152802035376524
Like any partisan, of EITHER stripe, he believes and promotes that
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
>
>Fact this alleged person "First Post" appears to be too stupid to write her
>own material. Perhaps when she completes her GED studies she will be able to
>write a paragraph without plagiarizing anyone else. Here's the original
>dose bullshit:
>
>https://www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/10152802035376524
with which he's already in agreement rather than allowing his beliefs
and preconceptions to be challenged by facts.
First Post
Dec 8, 2015, 7:21:58 PM12/8/15
to
to the dumbassed left wing troll.
You pretty much nailed it in stating that they scream bullshit anytime
the truth contradicts their horseshit lies.
First Post
Dec 8, 2015, 7:30:10 PM12/8/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:53:00 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
cry 'plagiarism" for repeating facts.
Good god you are one incredibly ignorant left wing troll.
That old argument remains to this day one of the stupidest thing ever
written by a two bit unintelligent troll.
If I had just written my own opinion then you would say it doesn't
mean anything because there is no documentation and posting the
unadulterated facts is met with your silly, childish little
"plagiarism" accusation which falls flat because you can't plagiarize
straight factual information. Information is simply information and
facts cannot be claimed as anyone's intellectual property.
You may as well accuse anyone that states the law of gravity as
plagiarizing Newton.
Evidently a GED would be several grade levels above your own extremely
low level of intelligence.
The bottom line is that you CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE WORD of what I
posted so you try to evade and avoid the argument altogether with your
childish little rant.
Run along little piss boy and maybe you can find a newsgroup more
suited to your inability to accept facts that don't suit your
emotional state. Like alt.stupidity.
wrote:
>
>
>"First Post" wrote in message
>news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
>
>Fact this alleged person "First Post" appears to be too stupid to write her
>own material. Perhaps when she completes her GED studies she will be able to
>write a paragraph without plagiarizing anyone else. Here's the original
>dose bullshit:
>
>https://www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/10152802035376524
So you admit that you cannot dispute the stated facts so you want to
>
>
>"First Post" wrote in message
>news:h47c6bduaddadmbuh...@4ax.com...
>
>On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:22:01 -0500, "Milton Keynes" <xy...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to ... (plagiarized
>bullshit obliterated)
>
>Fact this alleged person "First Post" appears to be too stupid to write her
>own material. Perhaps when she completes her GED studies she will be able to
>write a paragraph without plagiarizing anyone else. Here's the original
>dose bullshit:
>
>https://www.facebook.com/TheView/posts/10152802035376524
cry 'plagiarism" for repeating facts.
Good god you are one incredibly ignorant left wing troll.
That old argument remains to this day one of the stupidest thing ever
written by a two bit unintelligent troll.
If I had just written my own opinion then you would say it doesn't
mean anything because there is no documentation and posting the
unadulterated facts is met with your silly, childish little
"plagiarism" accusation which falls flat because you can't plagiarize
straight factual information. Information is simply information and
facts cannot be claimed as anyone's intellectual property.
You may as well accuse anyone that states the law of gravity as
plagiarizing Newton.
Evidently a GED would be several grade levels above your own extremely
low level of intelligence.
The bottom line is that you CANNOT REFUTE A SINGLE WORD of what I
posted so you try to evade and avoid the argument altogether with your
childish little rant.
Run along little piss boy and maybe you can find a newsgroup more
suited to your inability to accept facts that don't suit your
emotional state. Like alt.stupidity.
Governor Swill
Dec 8, 2015, 9:30:11 PM12/8/15
to
On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 clairbear wrote:
>"Milton Keynes" wrote
>> "clairbear" wrote
>"Milton Keynes" wrote
>> "clairbear" wrote
>>>Gee I guess that's why Eisenhower forced the first steps at school
>>>intigration.
>> Probably more like the reason the Eisenhower family members are now
>> Democrats. Pres. Eisenhower stood for the same things as did the FDR
>> administration.
>> And speaking of Ike, which GOP politicians would say this:
>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193494630796/
>You litards just love revisionist history
By quoting his own words? Have you never read his farewell address?
>>>intigration.
>> Probably more like the reason the Eisenhower family members are now
>> Democrats. Pres. Eisenhower stood for the same things as did the FDR
>> administration.
>> And speaking of Ike, which GOP politicians would say this:
>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/531495193494630796/
>You litards just love revisionist history
Ike couldn't get elected dog catcher on a Republican ticket these
days. He was far too liberal.
Milton Keynes
Dec 9, 2015, 8:31:14 AM12/9/15
to
"First Post" wrote in message
>So [posting known facts
Facts are facts and opinions are opinions.
The FACT is you are too fuckin' stupid to write your own opinion.
What's verified? What's verified is the GOP is the party of cheap labor.
That's what it was from day one. That's what it is today.
It was a party founded by New England mill owners who used abolitionists as
their front men to make importing cheap labor from the south sound like a
religious crusade. That's the fact. When you complete your GED studies you
will learn to read words longer than five letters and perhaps you will be
able to digest some of the FACTS.
clairbear
Dec 9, 2015, 5:31:29 PM12/9/15
to
First Post <Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in
news:i1te6b92gak5re9f1...@4ax.com:
Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal denizens
of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
grammar
news:i1te6b92gak5re9f1...@4ax.com:
of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
grammar
First Post
Dec 9, 2015, 5:52:56 PM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
Which they have unknowingly turned into code words meaning "I have no
argument".
wrote:
argument".
Governor Swill
Dec 9, 2015, 7:32:41 PM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal denizens
>of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
>grammar
If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal denizens
>of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
>grammar
by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
including the link from which he copied it.
clairbear
Dec 10, 2015, 6:02:10 AM12/10/15
to
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:juhh6bp57si1sdjke...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>
>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>plagarize and critique grammar
>
> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
> including the link from which he copied it.
>
> Swill
And you make the rules for the entire usenet?
news:juhh6bp57si1sdjke...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>
>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>plagarize and critique grammar
>
> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
> including the link from which he copied it.
>
> Swill
First Post
Dec 10, 2015, 8:48:46 AM12/10/15
to
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:02:09 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
Meanwhile Swill and the rest of the non thinking liberal goofs swallow
every word from the mouths of Obama and cronies without ever being
given a single citation or reference.
Liberal Standard Operating Procedure.
Conservative poster posts irrefutable facts that are actual points of
history.
Liberal poster, being unable to dispute said facts panics and in a
knee jerk action, demands citations.
If the conservative poster then replies with legitimate cites, the
liberal poster will then either attempt to impugn the credibility of
said cites or attempt to focus on anything other than the facts they
want to dispute.
Liberal then claims victory without ever refuting a single fact
originally presented.
wrote:
every word from the mouths of Obama and cronies without ever being
given a single citation or reference.
Liberal Standard Operating Procedure.
Conservative poster posts irrefutable facts that are actual points of
history.
Liberal poster, being unable to dispute said facts panics and in a
knee jerk action, demands citations.
If the conservative poster then replies with legitimate cites, the
liberal poster will then either attempt to impugn the credibility of
said cites or attempt to focus on anything other than the facts they
want to dispute.
Liberal then claims victory without ever refuting a single fact
originally presented.
Governor Swill
Dec 10, 2015, 3:52:14 PM12/10/15
to
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 clairbear wrote:
>Governor Swill wrote
Post didn't actually write and you've ignored the post, my response
and the fact that he plagiarized it.
>> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
>> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
>> including the link from which he copied it.
pla·gia·rism
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them
off as one's own.
synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft,
stealing; informalcribbing
"accusations of plagiarism"
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define+plagiarism
Another poster accused him of plagiarism because he posted without
attribution an article previously published online by another author.
I didn't accuse him of plagiarism, I noted what he did that got him
accused of it.
The accuser provided a link to a Facebook post that has since
disappeared. However, I found the original work here:
http://russp.us/racism.htmhttp://russp.us/racism.htm
The author has no background in history or political science. He
offers World Net Daily as a serious news and opinion site. He places
quotes out of context on his quotes page thus changing their meaning.
His book list is a nightmare of paranoia and superstition.
This guy's page makes me think even less of First Post than I did
before reading it.
Swill
--
To leftists, centrists look like conservative Republicans.
To rightists, centrists look like liberal Democrats.
Actually, they're somewhere in between - that's why they're called "centrists".
>Governor Swill wrote
>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>>
>>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>>plagarize and critique grammar
Yet I engaged in a lengthy and thoughtful critique of the piece First
>>
>>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>>plagarize and critique grammar
Post didn't actually write and you've ignored the post, my response
and the fact that he plagiarized it.
>> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
>> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
>> including the link from which he copied it.
>And you make the rules for the entire usenet?
It's not a usenet rule. Plagiarism isn't ok anywhere.
pla·gia·rism
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them
off as one's own.
synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft,
stealing; informalcribbing
"accusations of plagiarism"
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define+plagiarism
Another poster accused him of plagiarism because he posted without
attribution an article previously published online by another author.
I didn't accuse him of plagiarism, I noted what he did that got him
accused of it.
The accuser provided a link to a Facebook post that has since
disappeared. However, I found the original work here:
http://russp.us/racism.htmhttp://russp.us/racism.htm
The author has no background in history or political science. He
offers World Net Daily as a serious news and opinion site. He places
quotes out of context on his quotes page thus changing their meaning.
His book list is a nightmare of paranoia and superstition.
This guy's page makes me think even less of First Post than I did
before reading it.
Swill
--
To leftists, centrists look like conservative Republicans.
To rightists, centrists look like liberal Democrats.
Actually, they're somewhere in between - that's why they're called "centrists".
clairbear
Dec 10, 2015, 3:54:22 PM12/10/15
to
First Post <Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in
news:2a0j6bljm2gdg2qga...@4ax.com:
Governor Swill
Dec 10, 2015, 3:55:03 PM12/10/15
to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:52:51 -0600, First Post wrote:
>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal denizens
>>of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
>>grammar
>
>Which they have unknowingly turned into code words meaning "I have no
>argument".
Where is your response to my lengthy and detailed critique of the
>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal denizens
>>of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like plagarize and critique
>>grammar
>
>Which they have unknowingly turned into code words meaning "I have no
>argument".
PRuss article you posted?
Did it terrify you so badly you can't even bring yourself to admit I
posted it?
Yet here you are, ignoring pages of discussion and claiming they never
happened.
Typical partisan.
Governor Swill
Dec 11, 2015, 1:29:14 PM12/11/15
to
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:54:21 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
I have refuted points in that post. I find it typical of wingnuts to
deny the post exists, to continue in that denial even after it's
pointed out to them.
Fact: I responded to the post three days ago.
Fact: FP ignored it completely in his response (perhaps in hopes that
nobody would see my refutation of is stupid copy/paste).
Fact: You've reinforced this attempt to deny the post I made existed.
Fact: FP also deleted Milton Keynes post, claiming it was "outright
fabrication and lies". If it was, he should have been only to happy
to repost it for all to see complete with his refutation, point by
point.
Here's my response to FP's copy/paste which the two of you say I never
posted.
Message-ID: <ejvd6b54s33gbsr9j...@4ax.com>
--Begin Copy--
>A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
>perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
>antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not
>only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that
>African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
>level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of
>white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the
>openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
Additional note: The one demographic the GOP can count on is
shrinking as it ages. Seems *young* white males don't vote as
reliably Republican as older ones.
wrote:
deny the post exists, to continue in that denial even after it's
pointed out to them.
Fact: I responded to the post three days ago.
Fact: FP ignored it completely in his response (perhaps in hopes that
nobody would see my refutation of is stupid copy/paste).
Fact: You've reinforced this attempt to deny the post I made existed.
Fact: FP also deleted Milton Keynes post, claiming it was "outright
fabrication and lies". If it was, he should have been only to happy
to repost it for all to see complete with his refutation, point by
point.
Here's my response to FP's copy/paste which the two of you say I never
posted.
Message-ID: <ejvd6b54s33gbsr9j...@4ax.com>
--Begin Copy--
On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:59:18 -0600, First Post
<Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
<Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote:
>><Complete fabrication of facts and outright lies snipped>
If it really was complete fabrication and outright lies, you'd have
left it in for all to see.
*text restored*
left it in for all to see.
*text restored*
>Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery,
>and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
>and Republicans eventually abolished slavery.
That was 150 years ago. What are they doing now?
The GOP was also founded to assert federal authority over states'
rights and reestablish national banking and currency standards to the
benefit of business. The GOP were the inheritors of the Whigs and
Federalists. Yeah, that's right, the founding of the GOP was based on
the ascendance of Washington, national regulation and the suppression
of states' rights. Slavery and civil rights were the wedge issues of
the day intended to unite disparate anti Democrats and drive voters to
the polls.
The GOP has been by turns liberal and conservative, supporting and
denying minority rights, for and against regulation. The ONE thing
that has always been the hallmark of the GOP has been its steadfast
support for business and even that got a shakeup before WW I.
The GOP was also founded to assert federal authority over states'
rights and reestablish national banking and currency standards to the
benefit of business. The GOP were the inheritors of the Whigs and
Federalists. Yeah, that's right, the founding of the GOP was based on
the ascendance of Washington, national regulation and the suppression
of states' rights. Slavery and civil rights were the wedge issues of
the day intended to unite disparate anti Democrats and drive voters to
the polls.
The GOP has been by turns liberal and conservative, supporting and
denying minority rights, for and against regulation. The ONE thing
that has always been the hallmark of the GOP has been its steadfast
support for business and even that got a shakeup before WW I.
>The Democratic Party
>fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th
>Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican
>support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
>fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th
>Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican
>support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
This is because at the time, the Democrats were the conservative party
dominated by Protestant churches. That shoe is on the Republican foot
these days.
dominated by Protestant churches. That shoe is on the Republican foot
these days.
>Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries
>about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example.
>about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example.
You must be deaf. It's standard info in mid 19th century history
pieces. It's well known that the Dems were the followers of Jackson
and centered in the south. The only thing I see being denied by
anybody is modern Republicans denying their party is no longer liberal
- that it is in fact the GOP that has taken the mantle of conservatism
from the Dems who, in their turn, have become the liberal party of the
nation.
pieces. It's well known that the Dems were the followers of Jackson
and centered in the south. The only thing I see being denied by
anybody is modern Republicans denying their party is no longer liberal
- that it is in fact the GOP that has taken the mantle of conservatism
from the Dems who, in their turn, have become the liberal party of the
nation.
>One
>can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
>about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
>it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
>opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
>for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
>can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more
>about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that
>it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who
>opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out
>for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Today's Rep and Dem parties and 180 degrees different from that. The
GOP embraces hard line rightists and bigots and states' rights. The
party core used to be the liberal north, now it's in the conservative
south, the bastion and center of race hate.
Put it another way. In the 19th century, conservatives supported
slavery and liberals opposed it. That is still true today.
Conservatives welcome bigots to their ranks, liberals do not.
The difference is that libs and cons alike jumped ship and switched
parties in the 20th century.
GOP embraces hard line rightists and bigots and states' rights. The
party core used to be the liberal north, now it's in the conservative
south, the bastion and center of race hate.
Put it another way. In the 19th century, conservatives supported
slavery and liberals opposed it. That is still true today.
Conservatives welcome bigots to their ranks, liberals do not.
The difference is that libs and cons alike jumped ship and switched
parties in the 20th century.
>Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats
>had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
>would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny
>how that works.
>had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles
>would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny
>how that works.
If the party labels aren't spoken often enough to suit you, it may be
because those roles don't apply to today's world. Today it's the Reps
who are conservative and embrace votes from racists and the Dems who
are liberal and have no use for haters. 150 years ago, the opposite
was true, the Dems were conservative and the Reps were liberal.
You're arguing for a conservative view that includes racial bias by
falsely assigning racial ideology to the wrong party. That is, your
argument is a century and a half out of date.
because those roles don't apply to today's world. Today it's the Reps
who are conservative and embrace votes from racists and the Dems who
are liberal and have no use for haters. 150 years ago, the opposite
was true, the Dems were conservative and the Reps were liberal.
You're arguing for a conservative view that includes racial bias by
falsely assigning racial ideology to the wrong party. That is, your
argument is a century and a half out of date.
>Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given
>that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to
>endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
>that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to
>endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Which has little to do with now. Today, "radical Republicans" would
just as soon reverse that progress as to let them move into their
neighborhoods.
just as soon reverse that progress as to let them move into their
neighborhoods.
>Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Just as it's a radical idea today to let queers marry. In half a
century even conservative churches will be teaching why it was the
right thing to do for Jesus.
century even conservative churches will be teaching why it was the
right thing to do for Jesus.
>Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly
>pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by
>Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After
>Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in
>Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and
>Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
>century.
>pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by
>Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After
>Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in
>Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and
>Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a
>century.
Continued to *attempt* to thwart . . . as you admit in your next
paragraph.
paragraph.
>Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves,
>passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
>passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress.
>
>Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful
>to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution?
>passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote,
>passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in
>congress.
>
>Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful
>to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution?
Even when they're complaining bitterly about the 14th being too broad?
>And
>shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party
>fiercely opposed it?
>shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party
>fiercely opposed it?
And shouldn't we now note how this has changed? How it's now the Dems
who support minority rights and personal liberty while the Reps stand
for status quo and conformity?
who support minority rights and personal liberty while the Reps stand
for status quo and conformity?
>Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the
>Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves
>and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with
>them.
>
>Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
>depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
>founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
>constantly on those shows.
>Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves
>and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with
>them.
>
>Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and
>depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been
>founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated
>constantly on those shows.
I don't see that it is. Again, if the party labels aren't repeated
mantra-like enough to suit you, bear in mind that's because the
parties have shifted so dramatically on this particular issue over the
past 175 or so years. In effect, it's unfair to paint Democrats as
racist haters because they not. They *were*, but not anymore. By the
same token, it's unfair to hold Republicans up as shining examples of
freedom, fairness and the color blind way of life because that simply
isn't true. Today's GOP is the party of conservative white males.
It's the only demographic they can count on at the polls.
mantra-like enough to suit you, bear in mind that's because the
parties have shifted so dramatically on this particular issue over the
past 175 or so years. In effect, it's unfair to paint Democrats as
racist haters because they not. They *were*, but not anymore. By the
same token, it's unfair to hold Republicans up as shining examples of
freedom, fairness and the color blind way of life because that simply
isn't true. Today's GOP is the party of conservative white males.
It's the only demographic they can count on at the polls.
>Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the
>US military and promoted civil rights for minorities.
>US military and promoted civil rights for minorities.
That is factually incorrect.
"Executive Order 9981 was an executive order issued on July 26, 1948,
by President Harry S. Truman. It abolished racial discrimination in
the United States Armed Forces and eventually led to the end of
segregation in the services.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
In that same year, the south, which had voted solidly Democratic for
over a century, split (between Truman and Thurmond's segregationist
platform) and *never again* voted as a Democratic block. Coincidence?
"Executive Order 9981 was an executive order issued on July 26, 1948,
by President Harry S. Truman. It abolished racial discrimination in
the United States Armed Forces and eventually led to the end of
segregation in the services.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9981
In that same year, the south, which had voted solidly Democratic for
over a century, split (between Truman and Thurmond's segregationist
platform) and *never again* voted as a Democratic block. Coincidence?
>Eisenhower
>pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
>pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
No, he didn't. CRA 1957 was brought to the table by Democrats who
enjoyed control of both Houses and would in the next election gain a
filibuster proof Senate that would last an entire decade. It's
difficult to see how a Republican President "pushed through"
legislation you claim the opposition party ardently opposed when that
opposition completely controlled the legislative process.
enjoyed control of both Houses and would in the next election gain a
filibuster proof Senate that would last an entire decade. It's
difficult to see how a Republican President "pushed through"
legislation you claim the opposition party ardently opposed when that
opposition completely controlled the legislative process.
>One of Eisenhower's
>primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none
>other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
>LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his
>position and supported the 1957 Act.
>primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none
>other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.
>LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his
>position and supported the 1957 Act.
You've complained about the party labels not being tagged to
historical behavior, yet you are guilty of it yourself. In 1957, the
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/
More than half the Dems in the House and nearly two thirds in the
Senate voted for CRA1957.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Yet you say Eisenhower "pushed" it through?
historical behavior, yet you are guilty of it yourself. In 1957, the
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
http://wiredpen.com/resources/political-commentary-and-analysis/a-visual-guide-balance-of-power-congress-presidency/
More than half the Dems in the House and nearly two thirds in the
Senate voted for CRA1957.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Yet you say Eisenhower "pushed" it through?
>Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher
>percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
>In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
>Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans
>and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
>percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress.
>In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the
>Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans
>and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Nevertheless, more than two thirds of Dems in both Houses voted for it
in a session in which the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate. Iow, if
every Republican in Congress had abstained, CRA1964 would still have
passed with a veto proof majority. If the Dems had not wanted it
passed, they simply would have not allowed it out of committee. If it
got somehow out of committee, the filibuster proof Senate could have
shut it down. But the majority of Dems DID want CRA passed - two
thirds of them.
CRA1964 was originally written and sent to Congress by JFK (who was
not a Republican). President, Johnson, who you note above tried to
stop CRA1957 (but really didn't), strongly supported it.
Had the Dems wished to keep that legislation off the floor of both
Houses, they could easily have done so.
Yet more than two thirds of Democrats voted for the bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
in a session in which the Dems had a filibuster proof Senate. Iow, if
every Republican in Congress had abstained, CRA1964 would still have
passed with a veto proof majority. If the Dems had not wanted it
passed, they simply would have not allowed it out of committee. If it
got somehow out of committee, the filibuster proof Senate could have
shut it down. But the majority of Dems DID want CRA passed - two
thirds of them.
CRA1964 was originally written and sent to Congress by JFK (who was
not a Republican). President, Johnson, who you note above tried to
stop CRA1957 (but really didn't), strongly supported it.
Had the Dems wished to keep that legislation off the floor of both
Houses, they could easily have done so.
Yet more than two thirds of Democrats voted for the bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
>Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched"
>on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
>subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
>government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
>cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
>strategy as greedy racists.
>on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
>subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on
>government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a
>cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious
>strategy as greedy racists.
This is not fact. This is false opinion intended to deceive.
>Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South
>began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican
>dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While
>it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the
>Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and
>integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party
>-- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes
>no sense whatsoever.
>began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican
>dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While
>it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the
>Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and
>integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party
>-- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes
>no sense whatsoever.
Whether it makes sense or not, the fact remains that the South, the
bastion of racism and whose Congress Critters, including the Reps,
voted universally against CRA. Yes, that's right, while a few
southern Dems voted for CRA, not one southern Republican did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
bastion of racism and whose Congress Critters, including the Reps,
voted universally against CRA. Yes, that's right, while a few
southern Dems voted for CRA, not one southern Republican did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
>Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will
>inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
>Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu
>maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats
>(slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all
>the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the
>Democrats! That's quite a feat!
>inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist
>Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu
>maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats
>(slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all
>the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the
>Democrats! That's quite a feat!
They did. The south was once called "the reliable south" because it
had voted Democrat in every Presidential election since Andrew
Jackson. But after Truman integrated the military, that all changed.
The last time in history the south voted as a bloc for a Democrat was
in 1944 to vote for FDR. In 1948 they split between Dems and Strom
Thurmond's segregationist ticket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948
In every other year since, the south has either split or voted
Republican. Notably, in 1964 the only states the Republicans took
were LA, MS, AL, GA, SC and Goldwater's home state of Arizona.
From 1972, the south has always voted as a bloc for Republicans except
for the Carter and Clinton splits.
had voted Democrat in every Presidential election since Andrew
Jackson. But after Truman integrated the military, that all changed.
The last time in history the south voted as a bloc for a Democrat was
in 1944 to vote for FDR. In 1948 they split between Dems and Strom
Thurmond's segregationist ticket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948
In every other year since, the south has either split or voted
Republican. Notably, in 1964 the only states the Republicans took
were LA, MS, AL, GA, SC and Goldwater's home state of Arizona.
From 1972, the south has always voted as a bloc for Republicans except
for the Carter and Clinton splits.
>It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act
>of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
>Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
>racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
>Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
>his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
>states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
>with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ
>in a landslide.
>of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican
>Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt
>racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George
>Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and
>his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of
>states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step
>with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ
>in a landslide.
His only support coming from the south. Hmm . . . you say he wasn't a
racist?
racist?
>But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided
>liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they
>have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it
>is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really
>nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political
>lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic
>Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
>Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
>Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
>trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
>say the least.
>liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they
>have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it
>is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really
>nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political
>lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic
>Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than
>Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights
>Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
>trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to
>say the least.
And yet, the proof is in the pudding. The GOP has a lock on the
South. Look at the convention floor of any GOP convention of the past
few decades. It's an ocean of white when compared to the spectrum of
color and gender at the Dem conventions.
The GOP might not be fairly labeled a racist party, but the fact
remains that when racists vote, they vote Republican.
South. Look at the convention floor of any GOP convention of the past
few decades. It's an ocean of white when compared to the spectrum of
color and gender at the Dem conventions.
The GOP might not be fairly labeled a racist party, but the fact
remains that when racists vote, they vote Republican.
>Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans
>are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
>more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
>assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
>a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of
>being repeated so many times.
>are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing
>more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and
>assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is
>a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of
>being repeated so many times.
Just plain lies. It's based on voter totals, demographic makeup of
party membership and initiatives to end legislation intended to help
equalize the playing field for blacks.
party membership and initiatives to end legislation intended to help
equalize the playing field for blacks.
>A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to
>Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
>that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious
>values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline
>support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its
>promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
>Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not,
>that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious
>values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline
>support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its
>promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
An opinion not based in fact. That shift occurred long before the
shift to secularism in the party became popular.
By line item: If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would
have always been legal. I support prayer in public schools only so
long as prayers are offered for every religion extant. Your use of
the term "gay agenda" betrays your bigotry. All homos want is the
same thing everybody else is entitled to. The right to live their
lives without fear.
shift to secularism in the party became popular.
By line item: If men could get pregnant, abortion on demand would
have always been legal. I support prayer in public schools only so
long as prayers are offered for every religion extant. Your use of
the term "gay agenda" betrays your bigotry. All homos want is the
same thing everybody else is entitled to. The right to live their
lives without fear.
>In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing
>with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on
>civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable
>political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had
>overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national
>Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as
>dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a
>famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
>those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same
>time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
>innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
>racism.
>with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on
>civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable
>political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had
>overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national
>Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as
>dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a
>famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have
>those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same
>time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and
>innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with
>racism.
More conjecture. Here's a fact for you though. When CRA 1964 was
passed, not one single southern Republican voted for it. Not one. It
did get a few Democratic votes though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
I bet you still don't get it though. Civil rights has always been a
regional issue and unchanged. Partisanship has changed.
Which is to say, the south has always opposed civil rights for blacks
regardless of party affiliation.
passed, not one single southern Republican voted for it. Not one. It
did get a few Democratic votes though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
I bet you still don't get it though. Civil rights has always been a
regional issue and unchanged. Partisanship has changed.
Which is to say, the south has always opposed civil rights for blacks
regardless of party affiliation.
>From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy
>of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly
>what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90
>percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
>benefits and welfare programs.
>of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly
>what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90
>percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government
>benefits and welfare programs.
Yet the vast majority of those dependent on Great Society benefits are
white.
white.
>And what is the result? Before LBJ's
>Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low
>as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
>Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low
>as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.
The intention was to provide support for the black community to help
them catch up to the mainstream. Unfortunately, the behavior of
individuals cannot be legislated and no matter what the govt does, non
whites and females continue to face discrimination from a white male
class jealous of its privileges even as they slip away.
The continued incarceration of black males for even minor and non
violent offenses is a major contributor to this. With a felony on
one's record, it's virtually impossible to get a decent job. And in
the war-on-drug mentality we've been in since the early eighties,
selling a joint to a friend was a felony in most states.
Our prisons are filled with hundreds of thousands of non violent,
minor drug offenders carrying decades long sentences.
If you're white and get caught selling a rock, you get smacked about a
bit and sent home. If you're black and get caught selling a rock, you
go to jail for twenty years to life.
The criminal justice system is just another means of systemically
destroying black lives and opportunities.
them catch up to the mainstream. Unfortunately, the behavior of
individuals cannot be legislated and no matter what the govt does, non
whites and females continue to face discrimination from a white male
class jealous of its privileges even as they slip away.
The continued incarceration of black males for even minor and non
violent offenses is a major contributor to this. With a felony on
one's record, it's virtually impossible to get a decent job. And in
the war-on-drug mentality we've been in since the early eighties,
selling a joint to a friend was a felony in most states.
Our prisons are filled with hundreds of thousands of non violent,
minor drug offenders carrying decades long sentences.
If you're white and get caught selling a rock, you get smacked about a
bit and sent home. If you're black and get caught selling a rock, you
go to jail for twenty years to life.
The criminal justice system is just another means of systemically
destroying black lives and opportunities.
>Most major American city governments have been run by liberal
>Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black
>sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like
>Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes
>on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime,
>blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not
>even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone?
>Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
>Republicans for their problems!
>Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black
>sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like
>Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes
>on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime,
>blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not
>even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone?
>Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist"
>Republicans for their problems!
Your ignorance of, or maybe it's wilful disregard for, history is
showing. It wasn't Democratic administration that ran Detroit into
the ground - it was gross mismanagement of the auto industry by the
Big Three Automakers that did it. Detroit's economy was based on
automobile manufacturing. GM, Ford and Chrysler ostriched themselves
for decades. GM's share of the domestic car market in 1965 was
greater than the entire domestic auto industry's share of it now.
All across the Republican north, for make no mistake, the north was
the core of the party from its inception, urban economies collapsed as
one industry after another failed to compete effectively against
foreign competitors. Steel, cars, electronics. By 1993 there was
only one TV manufacturer in the US - Zenith - and they had only one US
plant.
It is no longer possible to purchase a TV that's made in America. All
our favorite toys, smartphones, DVD players, computers, furniture,
home appliances are made abroad or from components made from abroad.
And interestingly enough, as Republican power in govt has increased
over the past forty years, it's just gotten worse.
showing. It wasn't Democratic administration that ran Detroit into
the ground - it was gross mismanagement of the auto industry by the
Big Three Automakers that did it. Detroit's economy was based on
automobile manufacturing. GM, Ford and Chrysler ostriched themselves
for decades. GM's share of the domestic car market in 1965 was
greater than the entire domestic auto industry's share of it now.
All across the Republican north, for make no mistake, the north was
the core of the party from its inception, urban economies collapsed as
one industry after another failed to compete effectively against
foreign competitors. Steel, cars, electronics. By 1993 there was
only one TV manufacturer in the US - Zenith - and they had only one US
plant.
It is no longer possible to purchase a TV that's made in America. All
our favorite toys, smartphones, DVD players, computers, furniture,
home appliances are made abroad or from components made from abroad.
And interestingly enough, as Republican power in govt has increased
over the past forty years, it's just gotten worse.
>Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal
>Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than
>almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst
>academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack
>Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC
>public schools, of course
>Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than
>almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst
>academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack
>Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC
>public schools, of course
No President would, or has. The security risks are too great. The
wealthy and privileged and those in the school voucher program much
prefer private schools.
wealthy and privileged and those in the school voucher program much
prefer private schools.
> -- but he assures us that those schools are
>good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in
>killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC,
>effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in
>those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers
>unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
Spin.
>good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in
>killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC,
>effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in
>those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers
>unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.
>A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for
>perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the
>antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not
>only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that
>African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a
>level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of
>white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the
>openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.
And that supremacy still exists. The very fact that whites complain
about affirmative action proves this.
Conduct this experiment. Look at Republican gatherings, especially
conventions. Compare what you see to the same view of Democratic
gatherings.
Consider this: Hardworking immigrants from Asia and Latin America
*should* be firmly in the GOP voting block. Both have conservative
social values, both are heavily into owning their own businesses and
yet both of these groups vote solidly, reliably Democratic and the
numbers are just getting bigger. In 2004, George Bush took 27% of the
Latino vote. By 2012, Mitt Romney got only 14% and the same trend is
about affirmative action proves this.
Conduct this experiment. Look at Republican gatherings, especially
conventions. Compare what you see to the same view of Democratic
gatherings.
Consider this: Hardworking immigrants from Asia and Latin America
*should* be firmly in the GOP voting block. Both have conservative
social values, both are heavily into owning their own businesses and
yet both of these groups vote solidly, reliably Democratic and the
numbers are just getting bigger. In 2004, George Bush took 27% of the
seen in Asian voting patterns. And females. And the young.
The GOP has one reliable voting bloc. Just one. White males.
Instead of wondering why this shouldn't be, try looking at why it
*is*.
--end copy--
The GOP has one reliable voting bloc. Just one. White males.
Instead of wondering why this shouldn't be, try looking at why it
*is*.
Additional note: The one demographic the GOP can count on is
shrinking as it ages. Seems *young* white males don't vote as
reliably Republican as older ones.
clairbear
Dec 12, 2015, 1:27:49 PM12/12/15
to
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9b4m6b5rjhlf36ug1...@4ax.com:
> Swill's drivel excised
You obviously have too much time on you hands fabricating tonning af
falsely quotes crap so that you can respond to yourself
Shows you for the true lying liberal piece of garbage you are
Just for the record the Actual post you responded to:
First Post
Dec 12, 2015, 2:26:27 PM12/12/15
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:27:49 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
The closer it gets to the election, the more desperation is
demonstrated by the left.
It has become abundantly clear that the bulk of the US population has
had a gut full of Obamanisms and attempts to "fundamentally transform
America".
And short of anything this side of Obama declaring marshal law and
halting elections, it is highly likely that it will be either a Trump
or Cruz that ends up in the whitehouse next.
And it is driving them batshit stupid crazy to the point of thinking
that forging posts and simply disrupting newsgroup and bulletin board
discussions will somehow convince people to come around to their way
of thinking.
They are feeling so hopeless regarding who will be the next president
that you see them on so called news broadcasts actually trying to
bully people into agreeing with them.
Don't be surprised to see the usual characters like wy, Tom Sr.,
Swill, Lee et al go even farther off the grid with their rants as well
as the shut in Yeung AKA Karen Gordon AKA Gerald Davis trying to
literally flood out the political groups with their forgeries.
The worst enemy of a modern liberal is legitimate debate and
discussion. It exposes their falsehoods and lies and since they
cannot legitimately defend their positions on virtually everything
liberal, they see their only recourse to be just shutting down any
legitimate debate or discussion by any means that they can.
wrote:
demonstrated by the left.
It has become abundantly clear that the bulk of the US population has
had a gut full of Obamanisms and attempts to "fundamentally transform
America".
And short of anything this side of Obama declaring marshal law and
halting elections, it is highly likely that it will be either a Trump
or Cruz that ends up in the whitehouse next.
And it is driving them batshit stupid crazy to the point of thinking
that forging posts and simply disrupting newsgroup and bulletin board
discussions will somehow convince people to come around to their way
of thinking.
They are feeling so hopeless regarding who will be the next president
that you see them on so called news broadcasts actually trying to
bully people into agreeing with them.
Don't be surprised to see the usual characters like wy, Tom Sr.,
Swill, Lee et al go even farther off the grid with their rants as well
as the shut in Yeung AKA Karen Gordon AKA Gerald Davis trying to
literally flood out the political groups with their forgeries.
The worst enemy of a modern liberal is legitimate debate and
discussion. It exposes their falsehoods and lies and since they
cannot legitimately defend their positions on virtually everything
liberal, they see their only recourse to be just shutting down any
legitimate debate or discussion by any means that they can.
Governor Swill
Dec 13, 2015, 2:36:27 PM12/13/15
to
>Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:9b4m6b5rjhlf36ug1...@4ax.com:
>
>> Swill's drivel excised
>
>You obviously have too much time on you hands fabricating tonning af
>falsely quotes crap so that you can respond to yourself
>Shows you for the true lying liberal piece of garbage you are
>
>Just for the record the Actual post you responded to:
Well, let's see. I included that in my reply but I noticed you've
>news:9b4m6b5rjhlf36ug1...@4ax.com:
>
>> Swill's drivel excised
>
>You obviously have too much time on you hands fabricating tonning af
>falsely quotes crap so that you can respond to yourself
>Shows you for the true lying liberal piece of garbage you are
>
>Just for the record the Actual post you responded to:
deleted the entire reply I made as well as the First Post copy/paste I
replied to. So, again, lets just repost the whole thing and see what
it is you're so anxious to remove from this thread.
Btw and ftr, neither of you have replied to the post you CLAIM I never
made - a reply to a post you claim FP never made. Iow, you're both a
bunch of brainless chicken shits who can't post anything but other
people's work, badly composed insults and mindless slogans.
When you develop the capacity for intelligent and thoughtful analysis
and response . . . the sun will probably have turned into a red giant.
So, let's try again, boys. This is my reply to the article FP stole
from somplace and posted here as his own work. Since neither of you
have replied to it, it seems you're both guilty of projection. That
is, doing what you accused me of doing.
Message-ID: <9b4m6b5rjhlf36ug1...@4ax.com>
--begin copy--
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:54:21 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
>First Post <Liberalism...@Leftwing-Cowards.net> wrote in
>news:2a0j6bljm2gdg2qga...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:02:09 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:juhh6bp57si1sdjke...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>>>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>>>>plagarize and critique grammar
>>>>
>>>> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
>>>> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
>>>> including the link from which he copied it.
>>>>
>>>> Swill
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:31:29 -0600, clairbear wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Refuting facts has not been the strong suit of most of the liberal
>>>>>denizens of the usenet. They,d rather throw around words like
>>>>>plagarize and critique grammar
>>>>
>>>> If you're referring to First Post's recent paste of an article written
>>>> by someone else, he could have avoided the "P" word charge simply by
>>>> including the link from which he copied it.
>>>>
>>>> Swill
>>>
>>>And you make the rules for the entire usenet?
>>
>> Meanwhile Swill and the rest of the non thinking liberal goofs swallow
>> every word from the mouths of Obama and cronies without ever being
>> given a single citation or reference.
>>
>> Liberal Standard Operating Procedure.
>>
>> Conservative poster posts irrefutable facts that are actual points of
>> history.
>> Liberal poster, being unable to dispute said facts panics and in a
>> knee jerk action, demands citations.
>> If the conservative poster then replies with legitimate cites, the
>> liberal poster will then either attempt to impugn the credibility of
>> said cites or attempt to focus on anything other than the facts they
>> want to dispute.
>> Liberal then claims victory without ever refuting a single fact
>> originally presented.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And there you have the text book description of liberal hypocrisy
>>
>> Meanwhile Swill and the rest of the non thinking liberal goofs swallow
>> every word from the mouths of Obama and cronies without ever being
>> given a single citation or reference.
>>
>> Liberal Standard Operating Procedure.
>>
>> Conservative poster posts irrefutable facts that are actual points of
>> history.
>> Liberal poster, being unable to dispute said facts panics and in a
>> knee jerk action, demands citations.
>> If the conservative poster then replies with legitimate cites, the
>> liberal poster will then either attempt to impugn the credibility of
>> said cites or attempt to focus on anything other than the facts they
>> want to dispute.
>> Liberal then claims victory without ever refuting a single fact
>> originally presented.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And there you have the text book description of liberal hypocrisy
Swill
--
The difference between being ruled by a central government
or the 1% is that the government is ultimately answerable
to the voters - the 1% are answerable to no one.
<http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm>
Governor Swill
Dec 13, 2015, 2:37:57 PM12/13/15
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:26:16 -0600, First Post wrote:
>The closer it gets to the election, the more desperation is
>demonstrated by the left.
>It has become abundantly clear that the bulk of the US population has
>had a gut full of Obamanisms and attempts to "fundamentally transform
>America".
Did you copy this from some 2007 or 2008 conservative post? Because,
>The closer it gets to the election, the more desperation is
>demonstrated by the left.
>It has become abundantly clear that the bulk of the US population has
>had a gut full of Obamanisms and attempts to "fundamentally transform
>America".
you know, this sounds a lot like what cons were posting about election
2008 which Obama won overwhelmingly.
clairbear
Dec 13, 2015, 6:22:22 PM12/13/15
to
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:g6ir6bp9og9h60u19...@4ax.com:
ahead tell yourself what ever you want, because as usual four rants are
full of sound and fury signifying nothing
First Post
Dec 13, 2015, 9:09:45 PM12/13/15
to
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:22:21 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
Everytime Swill comes up with one of his left wing talking points it
just shows how completely stupid he is when he claims to be a
centrist.
BTW, just how could the American voters have been sick of "Obamanisms"
prior to Obama ever winning the first election?
Apparently Swill is too stupid to see the idiocy of his response.
It also implies that Swill, like most other leftists, is scared
shitless that a Trump or even Cruz stand a very good chance of
defeating the hag that they have already decided is going to be their
nominee. In fact every time you see a liberal come back on a post
describing the utter fear that the left is now experiencing, they just
further prove the point made above. The more afraid they get, the
more vitriolic and rabid their posts become.
wrote:
just shows how completely stupid he is when he claims to be a
centrist.
BTW, just how could the American voters have been sick of "Obamanisms"
prior to Obama ever winning the first election?
Apparently Swill is too stupid to see the idiocy of his response.
It also implies that Swill, like most other leftists, is scared
shitless that a Trump or even Cruz stand a very good chance of
defeating the hag that they have already decided is going to be their
nominee. In fact every time you see a liberal come back on a post
describing the utter fear that the left is now experiencing, they just
further prove the point made above. The more afraid they get, the
more vitriolic and rabid their posts become.
Governor Swill
Dec 13, 2015, 11:39:41 PM12/13/15
to
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:22:21 -0600, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
wrote:
Revising history is a hobby with you?
Whether you like it or not, American Presidential elections are won in
the Electoral College and Obama handily beat his Rep opponents in both
his elections by much wider margins than Bush won his. As for
weakness, Romney did better than McCain.
2012 popular vote was 51 - 48. The electoral was 332 - 206.
2008 popular vote was 53 - 46. The electoral was 365 - 173.
2004 popular vote was 51 - 48. The electoral was 286 - 251.
2000 popular vote was 48 - 48. The electoral was 271 - 266.
wrote:
Whether you like it or not, American Presidential elections are won in
the Electoral College and Obama handily beat his Rep opponents in both
his elections by much wider margins than Bush won his. As for
weakness, Romney did better than McCain.
2012 popular vote was 51 - 48. The electoral was 332 - 206.
2008 popular vote was 53 - 46. The electoral was 365 - 173.
2004 popular vote was 51 - 48. The electoral was 286 - 251.
2000 popular vote was 48 - 48. The electoral was 271 - 266.
Milton Keynes
Dec 13, 2015, 11:39:44 PM12/13/15
to
"clairbear" wrote in message
news:XnsA56FBAD2E...@216.166.97.142...
> Gee 52% of the vote against a weak opponent is hardly 'overwhelming'
elected with a majority of the popular vote TWICE.
Hint: That's what makes it OVERWHELMING.
0 new messages