Jump to content

Why Are Democrats Afraid to Face This Truth?


Recommended Posts

The Myth of the Dixiecrat Switch of the Republican and Democratic parties

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, we decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry worked on a documentary about Patriots in the United States.

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

In fact, it seems that VIRTUALLY ALL of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even
though many of them lived long past 1964.


Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

"The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch, as the old, Racist, K.K.K. segregationists, (traditional Democrats) retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.

The old guard Racist K.K.K.- type Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers, the Racist K.K.K.- type (the Democrat Hero and Lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, WAS A KLEAGLE, IN THE KU KLUX KLAN, AND ADMMITTED TO BEING PRESENT AT NUMEROUS LYNCHINGS(MURDERS) OF BLACK MEN!......Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems..

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 of the Republican Party, 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 essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely 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 [African-American slur]s 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 DEMOCRAT STRATEGY OF BLACK DEPENDENCE ON DEMOCRATS 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 vision 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.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it...But most modern liberals are low on intelligence, facts and HISTORY, and ONLY KNOW WHAT THEIR PARROTTING MEDIA SHEEP-HERDERS TELL THEM TO SAY!

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

******************************************************

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

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.

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 dramatically in 150 years, 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 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 nearly a century.

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and 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.

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 mainly 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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All TRUE, but I'll add a little...

 

The Liberals will be quick to say that "all the "Dixiecrats" became Republicans... and that's not really true.

 

The Dixiecrats were at their peak in the 1950's and 1960's... When the Civil Rights legislation was passed in the mid 1960's, ALL the Dixiecrats were firmly Democrats, and voted against Civil Rights for Blacks...

 

From around 1964 to 1980, in addition to 16 years passing, the country had CHANGED... Civil Rights was no longer a hot button topic... it was accepted and the country moved on... Jimmy Carter had gutted the military, and the country in the worst economic problems since the Great Depression... with no growth, and 20% intrest rates (yes, on credit cards they were OVER 20%)...

 

THAT was the backdrop to when the VAST majority of the southern democrats became Republican... as part of the Reagan Democrats in the 1980 election... that Ronald Regan won. The Reagan Democrats switched because of economic and National Defense issues... and ANY argument that it was over Racial issues, or Civil Rights, is just wrong !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bobbadob who's truth? yours ?

 

 

No, moron, NOT MY TRUTH. HISTORY'S TRUTH. WIKIPEDIA'S TRUTH. THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS' TRUTH!

 

I'M SORRY, IF YOU WEAK-MINDED ROBOT SHEEP HAVE BEEN BEING PLAYED, FOR SUCKERS, BY YOUR DEMOCRAP PARTY, WHO HAS TOLD YOU THEY ARE THE "PARTY OF FAIRNESS, TOLERANCE, SUGAR AND SPICE", AND REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF RACISTS, BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO SUCCEED, MAKE MONEY, WITH OUR OWN SWEAT AND BLOOD, AND WE'RE NOT DEPENDENT ON GOVT. HANDOUTS AND WELFARE, LIKE MOST DEMOCRATS.

 

IM SORRY, IF YOU LIBERALS HERE ARE SO STUPID, YOU'VE SWALLOWED EVERY DROP OF FILTHY LIES, THE CORRUPT, BENT MEDIA HAS PUMPED DOWN YOUR THROATS, LIKE PROSTITUTES.

 

IF YOU LOW-INFORMATION, HATE-FILLED LEFTIST PEOPLE WOULD JUST READ ACTUAL HISTORY, AND STOP PROSTITUTING YOURSELF TO THE LIARS IN WASHINGTON DC, AND THE LIARS ON LEFTIST MEDIA, LIKE MESS-NBC, YOU MIGHT START TO SUCCEED YOURSELF, WITHOUT NEEDING GOVERNMENT!

 

 

"Greed: The word that Liberal losers use , to describe ambition, after jealousy, ignorance and hatred and get the best of them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of those who lived through this era I have a different perspective on this ugly period of history. The political code words to mask Southern racism were "States Rights". States rights was the mantra of the Dixicrats but not of the majority of Dems. As the GOP embraced states rights they attracted the attention of Southerners and in the end it was states rights that drew Southerners to the GOP. I'm sure plenty of Northern racists did the same.

 

Not every Southerner voter who bolted the Dems for the GOP did so for purely racist reasons but every Southern who was a racist left the Dems for the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of those who lived through this era I have a different perspective on this ugly period of history. The political code words to mask Southern racism were "States Rights". States rights was the mantra of the Dixicrats but not of the majority of Dems. As the GOP embraced states rights they attracted the attention of Southerners and in the end it was states rights that drew Southerners to the GOP. I'm sure plenty of Northern racists did the same.

 

Not every Southerner voter who bolted the Dems for the GOP did so for purely racist reasons but every Southern who was a racist left the Dems for the GOP.

 

So it would seem you are AGAINST "States Rights".....Hmmmm....Well, it's America, and everyone has the right to their own perspective.

But seeing how Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine, all the way back to the ideals of John Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Descartes and Rousseau , believed in DEMOCRACY, THE WORTH AND VALUE OF SELF, OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

 

"State's Rights" are nothing more than a measure to INSURE, that the Founder's ideals, the CONSTITUTION'S IDEALS, OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, ARE UPHELD, AGAINST A CENTRAL, SUBJUGATING, REPRESSIVE, POWER-GREEDY GOVERNMENT.

"State's Rights" are nothing more than a BULWARK, against an Overpowering, Greedy, Gobbling CENTRAL LEVIATHAN GOVERNMENT, LIKE MODERN AMERICAN LIBERALS ARE SO IN LOVE WITH.

 

By the way, "alang", recent history has SHOWN US EXAMPLES, of Huge, Overpowering, Greedy, Gobbling Central Governments.....

There was one in MOSCOW,....one in BEJING...there is STILL one, in Pyongyang......

 

By the way... Just how f*cking stupid are you?..regarding your last idiotic sentence....

Didn't you READ, WHAT I JUST WROTE, ABOVE, THAT THE ONLY TWO THAT "SWITCHED TO GOP" AFTER 1964, WERE STROM THURMOND AND Mills Godwin?

Did you think I MADE IT UP?

IT'S ON WIKIPEDIA, ASSHOLE, LOOK IT UP, Haaaaaahahahaa!

THE ONLY TWO THAT SWITCHED AFTER 1964, WERE STROM THURMOND AND Mills Godwin

 

Here, hop alang, "let me he'p youuuuu" .....Just like one of your heros used to say..

Know who? The Ku Klux Klan Boss Kleagle, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the Hero of the Democrat Senate... he used to ask all his Klan Brothers when the next LYNCHING WOULD BE, SO HE COULD ATTEND THOSE MURDERS OF MEN, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK....HOW MANY "GOP" SENATORS CAN WE SAY THAT ABOUT.........Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, "alang"?

 

******************************************************************************************

(Again, for the Low-Information Brainwashees, Haaahaha....)

 

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

Dem. Orval Fabus

Dem. Benjamin Travis Laney

Dem. John Stennis

Dem. James Eastland

Dem. Allen Ellender

Dem. Russell Long

Dem. John Sparkman

Dem. John McClellan

Dem. Richard Russell (pissed in bottles, to KEEP BLACK CHILDREN DOWN...KEEP BLACK WOMEN OUT OF BATHROOMS, UNLESS THEY SAID "NIG*ERS ONLY")

Dem. Herman Talmadge

Dem. George Wallace

Dem. Lester Maddox

Dem. John Rarick

Dem. Robert Byrd - THE KU KLUX KLAN KEAGLE, WHO ADMITTED TO ATTENDING NUMEROUS "LYNCHINGS", MURDERS OF BLACK ME, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR SKIN WAS DARKER THAN RACIST ROBT. BYRD!..YES, THOSE DEMOCRATS ARE "TOLERANT", AREN'T THEY????

Dem. Al Gore, Sr. -(YES! THE WOODEN INDIAN'S DADDY!)

Dem. Bull Connor - yes, the one who didn't want little black children to get proper education....

YEAH, THOSE DEMOCRATS ARE GREAT PEOPLE!...ALL THESE STAYED DEMOCRAPS, TILL

THE DAY THEY DIED!

 

In fact, it seems that VIRTUALLY ALL of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.

Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we get off this plantation of voting on the "One Wing" of the same bird, rather than the Constitutional Repulic Concept. No matter what you say that might be fact for one side means you miss the whole point...the whole truth.

 

IT'S BOTH SIDES IDIOT! Ideas and concept wins the day. Your vigilence maintains the day you won! I don't care who the liar is. I want Liberty, freedom and truth. I care not for your braned. Show me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So it would seem you are AGAINST "States Rights".....Hmmmm....Well, it's America, and everyone has the right to their own perspective.

But seeing how Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine, all the way back to the ideals of John Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Descartes and Rousseau , believed in DEMOCRACY, THE WORTH AND VALUE OF SELF, OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

 

"State's Rights" are nothing more than a measure to INSURE, that the Founder's ideals, the CONSTITUTION'S IDEALS, OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, ARE UPHELD, AGAINST A CENTRAL, SUBJUGATING, REPRESSIVE, POWER-GREEDY GOVERNMENT.

"State's Rights" are nothing more than a BULWARK, against an Overpowering, Greedy, Gobbling CENTRAL LEVIATHAN GOVERNMENT, LIKE MODERN AMERICAN LIBERALS ARE SO IN LOVE WITH.

 

It must be very comforting to live in such a simple world as you do. Since you're such a big supporter of States Rights you'd have no problem if Massachusetts voted to ban all guns. Right?

 

 

By the way, "alang", recent history has SHOWN US EXAMPLES, of Huge, Overpowering, Greedy, Gobbling Central Governments.....

There was one in MOSCOW,....one in BEJING...there is STILL one, in Pyongyang......

 

There are also plenty of examples of weak central governments that are unable to protect their own citizens, Southern Sudan comes to mind. I wouldn't want to live there either.

 

 

By the way... Just how f*cking stupid are you?..regarding your last idiotic sentence....

Didn't you READ, WHAT I JUST WROTE, ABOVE, THAT THE ONLY TWO THAT "SWITCHED TO GOP" AFTER 1964, WERE STROM THURMOND AND Mills Godwin?

...

 

What you failed to understand that I wasn't diputing your list of politicians and their party affilications, I was talking about the Southern voters. It is they who left the Dems for the GOP and race was a major part of that decision to go. Politicians merely reflect their electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we get off this plantation of voting on the "One Wing" of the same bird, rather than the Constitutional Repulic Concept. No matter what you say that might be fact for one side means you miss the whole point...the whole truth.

 

IT'S BOTH SIDES IDIOT! Ideas and concept wins the day. Your vigilence maintains the day you won! I don't care who the liar is. I want Liberty, freedom and truth. I care not for your braned. Show me!

 

On the off-chance this was directed at me, I need to correct you on one point. Ideas and concepts may win a battle but in the long run it is the hard work of democratic (note the lower case "d") compromise that wins the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work bobby. I have put the voting roll call about this on this forum a couple of times. Dems, libs, just refuse to admit that it was the dems who held back the black man and were racists. Blacks never would have gotten their rights if it was not for the GOP. GOP voted %85 for the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we get off this plantation of voting on the "One Wing" of the same bird, rather than the Constitutional Repulic Concept. No matter what you say that might be fact for one side means you miss the whole point...the whole truth.

 

IT'S BOTH SIDES IDIOT! Ideas and concept wins the day. Your vigilence maintains the day you won! I don't care who the liar is. I want Liberty, freedom and truth. I care not for your braned. Show me!

 

 

 

Your words, "I don't care who the liar is", are very interesting.......

Hmmmmm......I don't want to insult you, but.....

 

If "You don't care who the liar is", THEN HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHEN SOMEONE IS TELLING YOU THE TRUTH?

 

 

See, I think you may have stumbled onto an important point....

There are FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE, in America, today, who "don't care who the liar is", anymore!

 

THEY JUST DON'T CARE!

They "don't want to hear it"!

believe me, "give me Liberty" I UNDERSTAND....You're FED UP....You "don't like the bickering and squabbling"...

I don't either!

 

But what should I do, just GIVE UP?

Because of a Crooked, lying, bent Media, we have a man in the White House who we CAN'T EVEN BE SURE IF HE'S A LEGAL AMERICAN!

no, I'm NOT "crazy", I'm NOT a "racist", I'm a very intelligent, logical man, who has NEVER SEEN A CANDIDATE, WHO WAS SO SHELTERED AND COVERED, than this man.

The MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH, couldn't show us his VALID, ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, with doctor's signature, hospital name, witnesses, FOR 3-1/2 YEARS?...then it was found, in a 12X10 room, the "records room", in the City Hall?...As if NO ONE LOOKED, BEFORE?

 

FORGET about whether he's a valid President...

Just LOOK, AT OUR ECONOMY!

OUR JOB MARKET!

THE POVERTY, THE MASSIVE INCREASE IN GOVT. CHECKS, "DISABILITY CLAIMS"??

 

THE LAUGHINGSTOCK WE ARE, TO RUSSIA'S PUTIN?

THE IRANIANS NUKE AYATOLLAS?

NORTH KOREA,?

 

SOMEONE TELL ME JUST ONE OF THIS MAN'S SUCCESS, THAT THE MEDIA FORCED ON US, BY CONVINCING THE MUSH-HEADED IDIOTS WHO BELIEVE THEIR EVERY WORD, HOW THEY STEERED THESE MINDLESS SHEEP TOWARD HIM?

 

HIS FAILURE TO PROTECT OUR AMERICAN AMBASSADOR AND STAFF IN BENGHAZI WAS "A SPONTANEOUS DEMONSTRATION CAUSED BY A YOUTUBE VIDEO?

 

Yeah, Spontaneous demonstrators ALWAYS CARRY RPG'S AND LIGHT ANTI-TANK LAUNCHERS IN THEIR BACK POCKETS.....

 

SO YOU DON'T CARE, THAT HE IS LYING, EVERYDAY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Myth of the Dixiecrat Switch of the Republican and Democratic parties

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, we decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry worked on a documentary about Patriots in the United States.

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

 

Orval Fabus

Benjamin Travis Laney

John Stennis

James Eastland

Allen Ellender

Russell Long

John Sparkman

John McClellan

Richard Russell

Herman Talmadge

George Wallace

Lester Maddox

John Rarick

Robert Byrd

Al Gore, Sr.

Bull Connor

 

In fact, it seems that VIRTUALLY ALL of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.

Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

"The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch, as the old, Racist, K.K.K. segregationists, (traditional Democrats) retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.

The old guard Racist K.K.K.- type Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers, the Racist K.K.K.- type (the Democrat Hero and Lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, WAS A KLEAGLE, IN THE KU KLUX KLAN, AND ADMMITTED TO BEING PRESENT AT NUMEROUS LYNCHINGS(MURDERS) OF BLACK MEN!......Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems..

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 of the Republican Party, 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 essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely 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 [African-American slur]s 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 DEMOCRAT STRATEGY OF BLACK DEPENDENCE ON DEMOCRATS 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 vision 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.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it...But most modern liberals are low on intelligence, facts and HISTORY, and ONLY KNOW WHAT THEIR PARROTTING MEDIA SHEEP-HERDERS TELL THEM TO SAY!

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

******************************************************

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

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.

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 dramatically in 150 years, 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 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 nearly a century.

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and 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.

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 mainly 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!

 

 

 

And your point is what. Dems and Repubs are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but every Southern who was a racist left the Dems for the GOP.

 

Like Robert Byrd, who held the longest filibuster in history in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act from passing?

 

Who in 2000 used the n-word on live TV?

 

Who remained a Democratic Senator until his death?

Dems and Repubs are the same.

 

No, they are not. That's just a Democratic Party talking point to keep the existing Democrats in the fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bobbadob who's truth? yours ?

Rightwingers hate minorities and Women and Gays so much they will say and do the stupidest things imaginable to justify said hate.

 

Fox and Bundy and Hannity etal can either start the 2nd civil war, which they seem intent on doing, or they can shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And your point is what. Dems and Repubs are the same.

His point was pretty clear.

Rightwingers hate minorities and Women and Gays so much they will say and do the stupidest things imaginable to justify said hate.

 

Fox and Bundy and Hannity etal can either start the 2nd civil war, which they seem intent on doing, or they can shut up.

Marthas has SPOKEN NAO STFU! LOL!

 

I swear you and Gallows are the same person. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like Robert Byrd, who held the longest filibuster in history in an attempt to stop the Civil Rights Act from passing?

 

Who in 2000 used the n-word on live TV?

 

Who remained a Democratic Senator until his death?

 

Again, I was referring to voters not politicians but since you brought up Byrd...

 

In 1952, Byrd announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.

 

Byrd joined with Democrat senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours, a move he later said he regretted.

 

In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And your point is what. Dems and Repubs are the same.

 

Yeah, genius, THAT'S what it says.....That they are "Both the same".......;85% Democrats fought against Civil Rights, Democrats had a "Democrat Hero" in their midst, Sen. Robt. Byrd, Proud Ku klux Klan Kleagle" (which means BOSS OF OTHER MURDERERS, ORDER-GIVER!),who PROUDLY ATTENDED MANY LYNCHINGS, MURDERS OF BLACK MEN, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK.

Republicans like Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such asRichard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

 

Republicans like President Abe Lincoln, Senator William H. Seward of New York, Governor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, Senator John C. Fremont of California, Supreme Court Associate Justice John McLean of Ohio--

VIRTUALLY ALL Prominent Republicans in the 1860 era, and Lincoln's Cabinet, WERE ALL ANTI-SLAVERY. The DEMOCRATS just wanted to KEEP WHIPPING, BEATING, RAPING AND MURDERING BLACKS, AS IF THE WERE COWS OR MULES, TO BE USED, AND THROWN IN THE GARBAGE, IF THEY DIDN'T WORK CORRECTLY!

 

 

 

 

THEY TRAITOROUSLY STARTED A WAR AGAINST THE GOVT. OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE, "those damn yankee northerners don't wanna let us be whippin' beatin, and killin owa slaves, no mo!....They say we shud'nt even HAVE Black Men and Women in chains, no mo!...Can yoo BEE-LEEVE IT?

They EVEN SAY, we cain't go in da barn, an take dem Blackie girls in da ass, no mo, wen owa WIVES ain't lookin!!"

 

 

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

(But, yeah, "zaro", you mindless sheep, THE PARTIES ARE "BOTH THE SAME")

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."

(But, yeah, "zaro", you mindless sheep, THE PARTIES ARE "BOTH THE SAME")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1952, Byrd announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.

You've left left a lot out of the story, alang.

 

First of all, there is inconsistency in what Byrd said over the years. In one venue, long after 1952, he said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 car accident. He said "the death of my grandson caused me to stop and think" and that he came to realize that African Americans love their children as much as he did. That sounds like he was a racist up till then, at least by the definition that many liberals use to define racist nowadays.

 

But more to point, the Byrd statement you quoted says he was in the KKK for only year and after he left lost all interest in the Klan. But that's outright false. Even sources like the Washington post have noted that he was recruiter for the KKK during his 20s and 30s, rising to the rank of Kleagle and then Exalted Cyclops. And though he claimed to have left the Klan in 1943 (that's 9 years before 1953), in 1946 he wrote a letter to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see it's rebirth in West Virgina." That certainly doesn't sound like he lost interest, alang. It sounds like he was spinning (lying) in the statement you quoted.

 

He also lied when he claimed his membership in the Klan was about excitement and anti-communism. In fact, in 1945, he wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061801105.html ) "a particularly incendiary letter" "to one of the Senate's most notorious segregationists, Theodore Bilbo (D-Miss), complaining about the Truman administration's efforts to integrate the military". The letter by Byrd stated that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side" and that "rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels." That's pretty harsh ... even by racist standards. So maybe Byrd's membership in the Klan did have something to do with his racial views afer all? Hmmmmm?

 

Byrd joined with Democrat senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours, a move he later said he regretted.

And he no doubt regretted opposing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, as well. Sure he regretted it. He had to if he wanted the black community to vote lock step for him. If he wanted to succeed at the national stage, he had to regret it. So he said whatever he needed to say to keep their vote. And yet in 2000 he was still using the N-word in public. Still showing signs of being a racist. But Democrats reelected him even after doing that. And kept him in office till his death. Now compare that reaction to their harsh treatment of Trent Lott who attended a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmon and said something nice about the man at the party. They and their media drove Lott out of the Senate, because Thurmon had been a segregationist. But is that the real reason?

 

Because Thurmon changed too. By 1971, he was appointing blacks to his senatorial staff. In fact, he first member of the South Carolina delegation and the first southern senator to appoint a black to his staff. He was the second senator to do so in the Senate at large. He supported the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act. He voted for a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King. He had a child by an African American women, and although it was kept secret, he generously supported the woman and child, helping him through medical school. This doesn't sound like the unreformed racist that the Democrats made him out to be. Constitutionalism was the theme of his one and only book. He was just as anti-communist like Byrd. Probably more so. But unlike Byrd, he believed the South's racial divide would be solved through economic growth and development, not through federal interference. And in hindsight, it looks like he was right. Promoting economic growth is the approach that should have been tried, instead of massive transfer (welfare) payments which only hindered growth and built dependency. But Democrats couldn't forgive Thurmon. Because he switched to the Republican Party. They couldn't forgive him, even though he didn't appear to have continued using the N-word … like Byrd did ... into the current century.

 

Because Democrats are hypocrites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But today's racists are comfortably embraced in the Republican Party.

No, the biggest racists today are in the party that is deliberately keeping blacks poor and ignorant so they're dependent on government.

 

Yes they couldnt vote for the black man. Republicans have many racist in their party. Most are tea party.

And Tommy is one of their spokespersons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the democrats?

Everywhere you look, Tommy, we see Democrats promoting racism.

 

Making EVERY issue about race.

 

Even if it clearly isn't.

 

The Democratic party feeds on the perception that racism is rampant and in all things.

 

Well that's racist, Tommy.

 

They need the perception of racism to help keep blacks voting for them.

 

Because without nearly 100% black support, they will lose elections.

 

They use the label racism to keep keep blacks (and other liberals) from looking closely ...

 

... at all the damage the Democrat agenda has done to blacks and the rest of their base over the years.

 

Because even some blacks are starting to wake up to what Democrats have done.

 

You've seen some of the videos, by blacks, talking about this, Tommy.

 

It's only a matter of time before the chickens finally come home to roost. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The republicans with the get the white back in white house crowd.

The tea party had thousands of tee shirts with get the white back in the white house printed on them. Yeah thats not racist.

 

First, that's a strawman. I didn't say that wasn't racist.

 

But you seem to be claiming that calling someone a racist over an issue that's not about race isn't racist?

 

Well?

 

And by the way, you haven't proven that the tea party had thousands of tee shirts made with that slogan printed on them.

 

Go ahead, show us proof that the tea party was behind their printing.

 

I bet you can't.

 

I bet you can't show us a image with more than one particular man wearing such a tee shirt.

 

Bet you can't even prove he was really a Romney supporter and not a plant by the left.

 

If you can't, then you are doing just what I complained about above.

 

You are dishonestly making something a racist issue when it is not.

 

Yes, someone at a Romney event wore a tee shirt that said that slogan.

 

And you leftists and the media when crazy over it.

 

The tee shirt even had a Romney sticker plastered on it.

 

But care to prove the Romney campaign had anything to do with it?

 

Prove the tea party had ANYTHING to do with it?

 

I bet you can't.

 

No more than you can prove the tee party had thousands of such tee shirts printed.

 

And if you can't prove what you claimed, then you LIED, Tommy.

 

You LIED trying to make the tea party look racist, when it isn't.

 

That makes YOU the racist.

 

You are despicable, Tommy.

 

You represent the worst of the Democratic Party and the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...