Racist cyberbulling of Meghan Markle
12 Mar 2019, 10:25 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have also heard him discuss the tactics of, Lenin(?), something like that, a socialist/democrat who developed tactics to win political battles by trickery like attending republican speeches and dressing up like klan members to fake klan support.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's fair to say that that black witness was either mistaken, or is non-existent. White nationalists at the scene were interviewed and easily identifiable from past right wing rallies.
Why are you so gung ho to support a bunch of scum bag Nazis?
As for your previous post - while in college I took a class on Civil War and Reconstruction history. Nothing you reported was correct. White southerners switched to the GOP in vast numbers in the decades following northern Democrats supporting civil rights.
How do you get that I'm Gung ho to support white supremacists, that's a stupid argument altogether, in no way at all have I said anything remotely close to supporting white supremacists.
Well I'm proud for your achievement but you must not have learned much. This guy is a scholar who has done a lot of research and publicly speaks about this stuff yet not one person has proven him wrong yet and he gets challenged everytime he speaks and claims that about 130 historians have been trying to prove him wrong for about three years now with no success. I would imagine you know nothing about this stuff because the majority of history text books are written by democrats. If nothing he said was true it's pretty obvious people would be calling out his lies with every speech he gives. He goes to colleges and universities pretty frequently saying the exact same things I just told you, it's pretty obvious that he isn't lying, people try to make arguments that he didn't mention and he proves them wrong on the spot and they have nothing else to say aftewards.
Regardless of anything, she 100% exists, she said that on a main stream left wing media outlet sitting with a group of Trump supporters being questioned about the incident.
Being able to defy being disproven by the facts is one thing, while obstinately sticking to a false argument is quite another.
You came across as defending the Nazis when you said they were really Antifa activists.
Regardless if text books are written by Democrats, it's a matter if they adhere to historic facts.
What are you talking about? He stated facts that you seem to say aren't facts while leftist historians can't debunk his facts. They are aware his facts are facts. If they weren't facts, people would dismiss his facts with facts. You seem to be misunderstanding the fact that he gives these speeches at top universities with people there against him that don't seem to be able to produce any facts that would dismiss his facts. He claims everyone can look these facts up themselves and encourages people to do so at everyone of his speeches, you seem to be the only one who is claiming otherwise, that seems more like denial which isn't even expressed at his speeches. Obviously someone would have called him out at top universities, you can't goto to a university and lie to people who wish they could disprove your facts without people easily calling you out, he openly welcomes the challenge. It would be extremely hard for me to believe that you know more than all the best universities and teachers, in fact, I don't belive you know more than all universities and teachers. It seems more like you are just prepared to deny anything you don't believe.
Start with the easier one. dixecrat's are the Democrats that were against rights for blacks. Only two of them switched to republicans out of about 150. Tomorrow I will give you their names, because he calls them out. Which part of that do you disagree with? Can you name more dixecrat's that switched to republican?
Last edited by Crimadella on 12 Mar 2019, 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Mar 2019, 10:29 pm
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have also heard him discuss the tactics of, Lenin(?), something like that, a socialist/democrat who developed tactics to win political battles by trickery like attending republican speeches and dressing up like klan members to fake klan support.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's fair to say that that black witness was either mistaken, or is non-existent. White nationalists at the scene were interviewed and easily identifiable from past right wing rallies.
Why are you so gung ho to support a bunch of scum bag Nazis?
As for your previous post - while in college I took a class on Civil War and Reconstruction history. Nothing you reported was correct. White southerners switched to the GOP in vast numbers in the decades following northern Democrats supporting civil rights.
How do you get that I'm Gung ho to support white supremacists, that's a stupid argument altogether, in no way at all have I said anything remotely close to supporting white supremacists.
Well I'm proud for your achievement but you must not have learned much. This guy is a scholar who has done a lot of research and publicly speaks about this stuff yet not one person has proven him wrong yet and he gets challenged everytime he speaks and claims that about 130 historians have been trying to prove him wrong for about three years now with no success. I would imagine you know nothing about this stuff because the majority of history text books are written by democrats. If nothing he said was true it's pretty obvious people would be calling out his lies with every speech he gives. He goes to colleges and universities pretty frequently saying the exact same things I just told you, it's pretty obvious that he isn't lying, people try to make arguments that he didn't mention and he proves them wrong on the spot and they have nothing else to say aftewards.
Regardless of anything, she 100% exists, she said that on a main stream left wing media outlet sitting with a group of Trump supporters being questioned about the incident.
Being able to defy being disproven by the facts is one thing, while obstinately sticking to a false argument is quite another.
You came across as defending the Nazis when you said they were really Antifa activists.
Regardless if text books are written by Democrats, it's a matter if they adhere to historic facts.
What are you talking about? He stated facts that you seem to say aren't facts while leftist historians can't debunk his facts. They are aware his facts are facts. If they weren't facts, people would dismiss his facts with facts. You seem to be misunderstanding the fact that he gives these speeches at top universities with people there against him that don't seem to be able to produce any facts that would dismiss his facts. He claims everyone can look these facts up themselves and encourages people to do so at everyone of his speeches, you seem to be the only one who is claiming otherwise, that seems more like denial which isn't even expressed at his speeches. Obviously someone would have called him out at top universities, you can't goto to a university and lie to people who wish they could disprove your facts without people easily calling you out, he openly welcomes the challenge. It would be extremely hard for me to believe that you know more than all the best universities and teachers, in fact, I don't belive you know more than all universities and teachers. It seems more like you are just prepared to deny anything you don't believe.
I'll just stick to my education.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Mar 2019, 10:31 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Is it just coincidence that Spencer and his group are crawling out from under their rocks in the here and now?
Is it just a coincidence that out of millions of people liberal media blew a fringe kook way out of proportion and put him up front?
The ADL and others have observed there are far more white nationalist groups today under Trump than in any other time in recent history.
The racism card where Trump is concerned is the most important one of all. Of course there's an epidemic of nazis attached to him. But they'll all "go back into hiding" as soon as he's out of office. All the Russian infiltrators will magically disappear too.
If they do, it'll be because their patron saint of orange bigotry will no longer be there to enable them.
That will be the claim of course. But of course they probably never really existed for the most part. It's easy to come to that conclusion considering the overall over-exaggeration, hype and sensationalism I've seen taking place.
That's called being willfully blind on your part. Of course they exist.
I know they exist, but I think their numbers are over exaggerated.
Prove me wrong by telling me the names of all these groups and their numbers. If you can't, that's called seeing things that aren't really there.
Don't do a google search and post a link to the first hit you get, or cut and paste, tell me from your own personal knowledge.
I'm actually too engrossed in watching WWE wrestling to answer that question. It's been a long time since the Hardy boys have been together in the ring.
Why not just admit that you don't really know.
12 Mar 2019, 10:36 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have also heard him discuss the tactics of, Lenin(?), something like that, a socialist/democrat who developed tactics to win political battles by trickery like attending republican speeches and dressing up like klan members to fake klan support.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's fair to say that that black witness was either mistaken, or is non-existent. White nationalists at the scene were interviewed and easily identifiable from past right wing rallies.
Why are you so gung ho to support a bunch of scum bag Nazis?
As for your previous post - while in college I took a class on Civil War and Reconstruction history. Nothing you reported was correct. White southerners switched to the GOP in vast numbers in the decades following northern Democrats supporting civil rights.
How do you get that I'm Gung ho to support white supremacists, that's a stupid argument altogether, in no way at all have I said anything remotely close to supporting white supremacists.
Well I'm proud for your achievement but you must not have learned much. This guy is a scholar who has done a lot of research and publicly speaks about this stuff yet not one person has proven him wrong yet and he gets challenged everytime he speaks and claims that about 130 historians have been trying to prove him wrong for about three years now with no success. I would imagine you know nothing about this stuff because the majority of history text books are written by democrats. If nothing he said was true it's pretty obvious people would be calling out his lies with every speech he gives. He goes to colleges and universities pretty frequently saying the exact same things I just told you, it's pretty obvious that he isn't lying, people try to make arguments that he didn't mention and he proves them wrong on the spot and they have nothing else to say aftewards.
Regardless of anything, she 100% exists, she said that on a main stream left wing media outlet sitting with a group of Trump supporters being questioned about the incident.
Being able to defy being disproven by the facts is one thing, while obstinately sticking to a false argument is quite another.
You came across as defending the Nazis when you said they were really Antifa activists.
Regardless if text books are written by Democrats, it's a matter if they adhere to historic facts.
What are you talking about? He stated facts that you seem to say aren't facts while leftist historians can't debunk his facts. They are aware his facts are facts. If they weren't facts, people would dismiss his facts with facts. You seem to be misunderstanding the fact that he gives these speeches at top universities with people there against him that don't seem to be able to produce any facts that would dismiss his facts. He claims everyone can look these facts up themselves and encourages people to do so at everyone of his speeches, you seem to be the only one who is claiming otherwise, that seems more like denial which isn't even expressed at his speeches. Obviously someone would have called him out at top universities, you can't goto to a university and lie to people who wish they could disprove your facts without people easily calling you out, he openly welcomes the challenge. It would be extremely hard for me to believe that you know more than all the best universities and teachers, in fact, I don't belive you know more than all universities and teachers. It seems more like you are just prepared to deny anything you don't believe.
I'll just stick to my education.
How about we take it step by step...
Well how about be more specific, do you disagree that dixecrat's were the Democrats who voted against black rights?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Mar 2019, 10:45 pm
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
I have also heard him discuss the tactics of, Lenin(?), something like that, a socialist/democrat who developed tactics to win political battles by trickery like attending republican speeches and dressing up like klan members to fake klan support.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
Then, something I learned before I learned that is about the march in Charlotte or wherever that place was (I can't remember), where the supposed white supremacists marched in the street with tiki torches, there is a black lady claiming that her friend witnessed antifa and the white supremacists getting off of the same bus, implying that the white supremacists was a show put on by antifa. I'very only heard that one woman claim that, but I would strongly doubt she would try tO lie about real white supremacists. She said she lives around that area, the friend who told her was also black. She seemed like just a regular person with a day job, not a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's fair to say that that black witness was either mistaken, or is non-existent. White nationalists at the scene were interviewed and easily identifiable from past right wing rallies.
Why are you so gung ho to support a bunch of scum bag Nazis?
As for your previous post - while in college I took a class on Civil War and Reconstruction history. Nothing you reported was correct. White southerners switched to the GOP in vast numbers in the decades following northern Democrats supporting civil rights.
How do you get that I'm Gung ho to support white supremacists, that's a stupid argument altogether, in no way at all have I said anything remotely close to supporting white supremacists.
Well I'm proud for your achievement but you must not have learned much. This guy is a scholar who has done a lot of research and publicly speaks about this stuff yet not one person has proven him wrong yet and he gets challenged everytime he speaks and claims that about 130 historians have been trying to prove him wrong for about three years now with no success. I would imagine you know nothing about this stuff because the majority of history text books are written by democrats. If nothing he said was true it's pretty obvious people would be calling out his lies with every speech he gives. He goes to colleges and universities pretty frequently saying the exact same things I just told you, it's pretty obvious that he isn't lying, people try to make arguments that he didn't mention and he proves them wrong on the spot and they have nothing else to say aftewards.
Regardless of anything, she 100% exists, she said that on a main stream left wing media outlet sitting with a group of Trump supporters being questioned about the incident.
Being able to defy being disproven by the facts is one thing, while obstinately sticking to a false argument is quite another.
You came across as defending the Nazis when you said they were really Antifa activists.
Regardless if text books are written by Democrats, it's a matter if they adhere to historic facts.
What are you talking about? He stated facts that you seem to say aren't facts while leftist historians can't debunk his facts. They are aware his facts are facts. If they weren't facts, people would dismiss his facts with facts. You seem to be misunderstanding the fact that he gives these speeches at top universities with people there against him that don't seem to be able to produce any facts that would dismiss his facts. He claims everyone can look these facts up themselves and encourages people to do so at everyone of his speeches, you seem to be the only one who is claiming otherwise, that seems more like denial which isn't even expressed at his speeches. Obviously someone would have called him out at top universities, you can't goto to a university and lie to people who wish they could disprove your facts without people easily calling you out, he openly welcomes the challenge. It would be extremely hard for me to believe that you know more than all the best universities and teachers, in fact, I don't belive you know more than all universities and teachers. It seems more like you are just prepared to deny anything you don't believe.
I'll just stick to my education.
How about we take it step by step...
Well how about be more specific, do you disagree that dixecrat's were the Democrats who voted against black rights?
Of course Dixiecrats were white southern Democrats who voted against northern Democrats who were supporting civil rights for blacks. Eventually, those Dixiecrats such as Strom Thurmond and others switched to the Republican party when they saw the Democratic party was becoming the party of civil rights. Nixon, then later Reagan, opened their arms up to them.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Mar 2019, 1:05 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
[ Eventually, those Dixiecrats such as Strom Thurmond and others switched to the Republican party when they saw the Democratic party was becoming the party of civil rights. Nixon, then later Reagan, opened their arms up to them.
Curiously this happened during the presidency of JFK. Both Robert Kennedy and John F. risked alienating millions of sourthern democratic voters by supporting the black civil rights movement. Up to then most working class KKK supporters in the south were democrats.
It's a curious coincidence how the assassination of JFK and Robert Kennedy set back the civil rights movement.
13 Mar 2019, 1:21 am
Crimadella wrote:
See the tactic of the left. Alot people who voted for Obama switched to voting for Trump, so the only explanation must be racism.
Actually the vox article suggested many disgruntled white voters fell for the smear campaign started during the tea party that Obama was a secret muslim and he was born in Kenya. There was also the fake emails spread about Hillary Clinton that she supported paedophilia.
The overwhelming evidence from pollsters in the US is that the voters who swung from Obama to Trump based their decision on mistrust of Obama's race and false lies that he was helping minorities at the expense of "true blue" white Americans plus mysognistic lies about Hillary (so sexism was involved as well)
If you take your mind back to when Trump was running for the GOP leadership against other republican contenders he couldn't depend on his experience or reputation as a politician (because he had none) so he distinguished himself from the others like Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney etc by being extreme on issues relating to minorities (Mexicans, Arabs and blacks), he was mysognistic and rude. To make matters worse he subscribed to consiracy theories like pizza gate and birther theories.
He crazy position worked as the white public ignored his poor economic crudentials (going bankrupt three times) and picked him to lead the GOP. Once he became the presidential candidate he couldn't go back to a more moderate position, he was already on the record. The public ignored the economy, jobs, health and foreign affairs and trade and voted Trump in purely on the back of two things....racism and sexism
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Mar 2019, 1:22 am
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
[ Eventually, those Dixiecrats such as Strom Thurmond and others switched to the Republican party when they saw the Democratic party was becoming the party of civil rights. Nixon, then later Reagan, opened their arms up to them.
Curiously this happened during the presidency of JFK. Both Robert Kennedy and John F. risked alienating millions of sourthern democratic voters by supporting the black civil rights movement. Up to then most working class KKK supporters in the south were democrats.
It's a curious coincidence how the assassination of JFK and Robert Kennedy set back the civil rights movement.
Actually, Lyndon Johnson had picked up the ball as Kennedy's successor, and had the know how in congress to force through civil rights legislation that Kennedy probably did not have. Even though Johnson's own political career in Texas had previously been marked by support of segregation, as President he was finally free to do what he knew to be right.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Mar 2019, 1:44 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Even though Johnson's own political career in Texas had previously been marked by support of segregation, as President he was finally free to do what he knew to be right.
Johnson was caving in to the changing political climate in the democratic party created by the Kennedy brothers. Some past quotes from LBJ suggest he was definitely not (at least in private) a supporter of civil rights
For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “ni**er bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”
He was also attributed to saying this;These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
In response he concluded: I'll have those ni**ers voting democrat for 200 yrs!!
13 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Even though Johnson's own political career in Texas had previously been marked by support of segregation, as President he was finally free to do what he knew to be right.
Johnson was caving in to the changing political climate in the democratic party created by the Kennedy brothers. Some past quotes from LBJ suggest he was definitely not (at least in private) a supporter of civil rights
For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “ni**er bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”
He was also attributed to saying this;These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
In response he concluded: I'll have those ni**ers voting democrat for 200 yrs!!
That's a good summation of my cynicism regarding democrat altruism. It's all about getting votes.
13 Mar 2019, 10:22 am
It's too hard for me to search this stuff but I have found sources that actually specifically mention how many Dixiecrats, someone came up with 3 that actually switched to the republican, that's not a lot of them, the rest either got out of politics or remained in the democratic party. I'm not versed enough in history, I'll put my trust in the guy that goes to debate universities. It's too obvious that people would call him out for lying at universities, so since that doesn't happen I would say it's safe to trust what he is saying.
I can't even find the details, which I find funny, left wing sources will tell you that most of the dixiecrats switched over to republican but never tend to actually give the names while other sources seem to actually give the names and be precise, like 3.
here is one thing I found just to add some information, I will simply stick to the above, agree with the popular guy who excepts challenges and doesn't seem to get proved wrong.
1. It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
a. "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: Segregation Forever! Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
b. While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!
3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
4. Heres a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is Thurmond
.the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?
a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives
except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.
b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program,
but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats
.Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Mar 2019, 10:44 am
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Even though Johnson's own political career in Texas had previously been marked by support of segregation, as President he was finally free to do what he knew to be right.
Johnson was caving in to the changing political climate in the democratic party created by the Kennedy brothers. Some past quotes from LBJ suggest he was definitely not (at least in private) a supporter of civil rights
For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “ni**er bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”
He was also attributed to saying this;These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
In response he concluded: I'll have those ni**ers voting democrat for 200 yrs!!
I have no doubt that Johnson never lost the racism he was raised with, but I do believe civil rights was something he felt strongly about, and that he intended to be remembered most for his civil rights accomplishments.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Mar 2019, 10:49 am
Crimadella wrote:
It's too hard for me to search this stuff but I have found sources that actually specifically mention how many Dixiecrats, someone came up with 3 that actually switched to the republican, that's not a lot of them, the rest either got out of politics or remained in the democratic party. I'm not versed enough in history, I'll put my trust in the guy that goes to debate universities. It's too obvious that people would call him out for lying at universities, so since that doesn't happen I would say it's safe to trust what he is saying.
I can't even find the details, which I find funny, left wing sources will tell you that most of the dixiecrats switched over to republican but never tend to actually give the names while other sources seem to actually give the names and be precise, like 3.
here is one thing I found just to add some information, I will simply stick to the above, agree with the popular guy who excepts challenges and doesn't seem to get proved wrong.
1. It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
a. "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: Segregation Forever! Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
b. While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!
3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
4. Heres a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is Thurmond .the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?
a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.
b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats .Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
I can't even find the details, which I find funny, left wing sources will tell you that most of the dixiecrats switched over to republican but never tend to actually give the names while other sources seem to actually give the names and be precise, like 3.
here is one thing I found just to add some information, I will simply stick to the above, agree with the popular guy who excepts challenges and doesn't seem to get proved wrong.
1. It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
a. "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: Segregation Forever! Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
b. While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!
3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
4. Heres a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is Thurmond .the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?
a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.
b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats .Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
The Dixiecrats and their progeny didn't all migrate to the Republican party over night. In fact, most started only with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Most other white southerners only became Republicans under Reagan with his coded racial language, such as "welfare queens," "young bucks on food stamps," and "states rights," etc.
Are we to believe most white southerners were Republicans all along?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Mar 2019, 11:03 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
It's too hard for me to search this stuff but I have found sources that actually specifically mention how many Dixiecrats, someone came up with 3 that actually switched to the republican, that's not a lot of them, the rest either got out of politics or remained in the democratic party. I'm not versed enough in history, I'll put my trust in the guy that goes to debate universities. It's too obvious that people would call him out for lying at universities, so since that doesn't happen I would say it's safe to trust what he is saying.
I can't even find the details, which I find funny, left wing sources will tell you that most of the dixiecrats switched over to republican but never tend to actually give the names while other sources seem to actually give the names and be precise, like 3.
here is one thing I found just to add some information, I will simply stick to the above, agree with the popular guy who excepts challenges and doesn't seem to get proved wrong.
1. It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
a. "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: Segregation Forever! Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
b. While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!
3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
4. Heres a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is Thurmond .the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?
a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.
b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats .Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
I can't even find the details, which I find funny, left wing sources will tell you that most of the dixiecrats switched over to republican but never tend to actually give the names while other sources seem to actually give the names and be precise, like 3.
here is one thing I found just to add some information, I will simply stick to the above, agree with the popular guy who excepts challenges and doesn't seem to get proved wrong.
1. It seems that some of our friends contend that conservative (racist) southern Democrats left the party and became Republicans. Not only is it provably untrue, but the fact that reliable Democrat voters, i.e., dim-wits, will accept it without questioning, is the reason the nation is in the state that it is.
2. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, not Dixiecan. They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
a. "The so-called Dixiecrats remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the States Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: Segregation Forever! Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.
Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association
b. While all Democrats werent segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc. were all....guess what.....Democrats!
3. But the most important segregationists were Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die.
a. "On June 13, 2005, in a resolution sponsored by senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and George Allen of Virginia, together with 78 others, the US Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills "when action was most needed."[3] From 1882-1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[3] None was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc"
Senate Apologizes for Not Passing Anti-Lynching Laws | Fox News
4. Heres a great opportunity to see the work the media does: challenge anyone to name one segregationist U.S. Senator, and the only one theyll be able to name is Thurmond .the only one who became a Republican. Get the idea?
a. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.
5. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives except for one.
a. And they were not conservative.
b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later.
Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.
c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy
d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU
e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist
f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist
g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War
h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist
i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter
j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs
k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, but supported Clarence Thomas nomination
l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs
m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDRs New Deal
n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Borks nomination.
The above, largely, from Coulter's new book, "Mugged."
Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats .Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kennedy refused to censure him.
The Dixiecrats and their progeny didn't all migrate to the Republican party over night. In fact, most started only with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Most other white southerners only became Republicans under Reagan with his coded racial language, such as "welfare queens," "young bucks on food stamps," and "states rights," etc.
Are we to believe most white southerners were Republicans all along?
to current times I have not heard of anyone state than anymore than 20% of the dixiecrats switched to the republican party, and the same guy came back to correct himself and said that is was actually only 10%, the rest of them remained democrats, we can all agre on who the dixiecrats were, they were the main ones against civil rights for blacks and it seems the overwhelming majority of them remained in the democratic party, thus to this date, the majority remained democrats till death.
13 Mar 2019, 11:05 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Even though Johnson's own political career in Texas had previously been marked by support of segregation, as President he was finally free to do what he knew to be right.
Johnson was caving in to the changing political climate in the democratic party created by the Kennedy brothers. Some past quotes from LBJ suggest he was definitely not (at least in private) a supporter of civil rights
For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “ni**er bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ni**er.”
He was also attributed to saying this;These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
In response he concluded: I'll have those ni**ers voting democrat for 200 yrs!!
I have no doubt that Johnson never lost the racism he was raised with, but I do believe civil rights was something he felt strongly about, and that he intended to be remembered most for his civil rights accomplishments.
"I'll have those ni**ers voting democrat for 200 yrs!!" seems to be where the motivation was.
