Hey Bill, what did you score on the LSAT?
we’ve had how many decades of millions of white people blindly voting (well my parents were party-x so I am too!) for and following white republicrat presidents? but now its a problem with blacks?
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
More seriously: It is bizarre actually for anyone to be in academia that long and publish NOTHING.
[/quote]
You’re right. Without the need to publish, Obama held basically a part-time job for 10 years after graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. (Allegedly) Seems to me someone with his intellect could have achieved a little more.
I wonder whether Obama was actually a lecturer in the writing program, and not a ‘Constitutional scholar’ as is claimed. [/quote]
cant work too hard ya know, especially when your fleecing yourself to become a career politician.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
we’ve had how many decades of millions of white people blindly voting (well my parents were party-x so I am too!) for and following white republicrat presidents? but now its a problem with blacks?
[/quote]
You’re quite right.
For decades, millions of white people have blindly voted for a particular candidate because he was white.
Same thing exactly.
Best post of the thread.
My question is why blacks blindly follow the democratic platform blindly.
The history of the democratic party’s racism is ignored for some reason.
Decades of propaganda is very effective.
The vast majority, I believe, of white Democrats and for that matter independents also believe that Republicans are to blame for segregation and other institutionalized racism that in fact occurred while Democrats were in complete control of the states in question, and believe that Democrats brought civil rights reforms in the 60s.
(It is correct that President Johnson was a Democrat and did so, but incorrect that in Congress the Republicans were the barrier. It was Democrats fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, with much stronger support among Republicans.)
But this is of course not taught that way in Democrat-taught (almost univerally) government schools, and not portrayed that way by ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, and is also not the impression subliminally – so to speak – given by movies and TV shows.
The majority of the public is going to buy into propaganda when it is so pervasive and has had such duration, with actual facts of the matter virtually never being given.
C’mon. For very, very many years and within recent memory the Democrat Senate Majority leader was a Klansman, for crying out loud. Yet what outrage did the press have over Robert “KKK” Byrd. He’s STILL a US Senator.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Decades of propaganda is very effective.
The vast majority, I believe, of white Democrats and for that matter independents also believe that Republicans are to blame for segregation and other institutionalized racism that in fact occurred while Democrats were in complete control of the states in question, and believe that Democrats brought civil rights reforms in the 60s.
(It is correct that President Johnson was a Democrat and did so, but incorrect that in Congress the Republicans were the barrier. It was Democrats fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, with much stronger support among Republicans.)
But this is of course not taught that way in Democrat-taught (almost univerally) government schools, and not portrayed that way by ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, and is also not the impression subliminally – so to speak – given by movies and TV shows.
The majority of the public is going to buy into propaganda when it is so pervasive and has had such duration, with actual facts of the matter virtually never being given.
C’mon. For very, very many years and within recent memory the Democrat Senate Majority leader was a Klansman, for crying out loud. Yet what outrage did the press have over Robert “KKK” Byrd. He’s STILL a US Senator.[/quote]
-
Byrd should have been kicked out of the Senate long, long ago.
-
The Democratic party DID bring civil rights reforms. They ushered the bill through strong bi-partisan opposition. In doing so they made a conscious choice and “lost the South for a generation”
-
The “southern block” that opposed the bill is now very much the territory of the Republicans.
-
The “facts of the matter” are widely available and widely taught.
[quote]
Civil Rights Act of 1964
By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)[/quote]
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
My question is why blacks blindly follow the democratic platform blindly.
The history of the democratic party’s racism is ignored for some reason. [/quote]
its not ignored at all. theres just more to the story than “democrats were the racists”
southern democrats walked out in the 48’ election when Truman and humphrey called for civil rights, the democratic party fragmented, hence the term dixiecrats. After realizing they could not form a competitive indy party, dixiecrats joined the republican party, some stayed in the dem party hence blue dogs. for a long time local and state elections in the south went to dems but at the national level republicans won.
its not an issue of this or that party is racist/segregationist, its certain groups of politicians were and they were joining what ever political party that they could get their planks on
“Democrat Democrats” fought against the Civil Rights Act, including Robert “KKK” Byrd, whom Democrats as a group made Senate Majority Leader.
It’s a nice twist to portray it as Republicans who did it, even though it was Democrats, by claiming “Well it was DIXIECRATS and they became Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats, but not real Democrats” (not that you said these exact words, but the above has been the argument of many over time as they try to paper over the fact of historical Democrat opposition to civil rights.)
Only the Democratic Party has ever made a Klansman – and not merely a Klansman, but a Kleagle, that is to say, a recruiter – Senate Majority Leader and bestowed such honors, indeed any honors, on a Klansman.
As for implying that opposition to the Civil Rights Act was made a plank of the Republican Party, or any sort of segregation plank, that too is false.
And to this day, for many or most Democrat politicians and “liberal” commentators, the first thing they need to know about anything before coming to any decision on the matter is the skin color of the person involved. These people still habitually make race the center or a key component of decisions that they make, and frequently play the race card to get votes. Oh, but now they do it “politically correctly” so it’s good, right?
Sorry: it is spin and propaganda to paint the Republicans as the historic or current source of opposition to civil rights for blacks or of segregation. But it is spin and propaganda that has been quite thoroughly achieved. A remarkable accomplishment of the water-carriers.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Decades of propaganda is very effective.
The vast majority, I believe, of white Democrats and for that matter independents also believe that Republicans are to blame for segregation and other institutionalized racism that in fact occurred while Democrats were in complete control of the states in question, and believe that Democrats brought civil rights reforms in the 60s.
(It is correct that President Johnson was a Democrat and did so, but incorrect that in Congress the Republicans were the barrier. It was Democrats fighting tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, with much stronger support among Republicans.)
But this is of course not taught that way in Democrat-taught (almost univerally) government schools, and not portrayed that way by ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, and is also not the impression subliminally – so to speak – given by movies and TV shows.
The majority of the public is going to buy into propaganda when it is so pervasive and has had such duration, with actual facts of the matter virtually never being given.
C’mon. For very, very many years and within recent memory the Democrat Senate Majority leader was a Klansman, for crying out loud. Yet what outrage did the press have over Robert “KKK” Byrd. He’s STILL a US Senator.[/quote]
actually it is taught in high schools that southern democrats were trying to block civil rights reforms. they also mention those southern democrats like thurman and helms switched parties after they couldn’t stop Johnson.
and on that note it is interesting that independent elements of goldwater from 60-80’s that were crushed by the religious right taking over the GOP, are now surfacing again with the tea party ect AND military don’t ask dont tell.
the guy who wanted to nuke the soviets and the commies also said “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar…You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
“Democrat Democrats” fought against the Civil Rights Act, including Robert “KKK” Byrd, whom Democrats as a group made Senate Majority Leader.
It’s a nice twist to portray it as Republicans who did it, even though it was Democrats, by claiming “Well it was DIXIECRATS and they became Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats, but not real Democrats” (not that you said these exact words, but the above has been the argument of many over time as they try to paper over the fact of historical Democrat opposition to civil rights.)
Only the Democratic Party has ever made a Klansman – and not merely a Klansman, but a Kleagle, that is to say, a recruiter – Senate Majority Leader and bestowed such honors, indeed any honors, on a Klansman.
As for implying that opposition to the Civil Rights Act was made a plank of the Republican Party, or any sort of segregation plank, that too is false.
And to this day, for many or most Democrat politicians and “liberal” commentators, the first thing they need to know about anything before coming to any decision on the matter is the skin color of the person involved. These people still habitually make race the center or a key component of decisions that they make, and frequently play the race card to get votes. Oh, but now they do it “politically correctly” so it’s good, right?
Sorry: it is spin and propaganda to paint the Republicans as the historic or current source of opposition to civil rights for blacks or of segregation. But it is spin and propaganda that has been quite thoroughly achieved. A remarkable accomplishment of the water-carriers.[/quote]
i said pretty much exactly opposite.
Dixiecrats were their own party that fragmented off the democratic party. its not just a label for fucks sake they were an actual party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party.
many segregationist shills stayed in the democratic party like thurman and byrd. later most left, thurman helms ect.
i never came close to saying that the republican party ran on the segregation plank. the segregationists had no concern for what party they belonged to, as long as they had a party that would support them, hence constantly jumping ship between the dems, repubs, and indy parties.
go open a high school history book. i dont know know what fantasy world you live in where the books are written by the democratic party.
Not by the Democratic Party, but it is a fact that the vast majority of public school educators are Democrats.
As for complaints of supposed misinterpretation, you can’t blame a person for going from what you wrote.
You had written:
The statement makes no sense if you had no intent of implying the Republican Party was one they could “get their planks on.” You could not have meant the States’ Rights Democratic Party or the American Independent Party, as it was not members of these parties that for example filibustered the Civil Right Act, or ran the Southern state governments. There were Presidential candidates who ran as members of these parties – and lost – but that pretty much is it. They have no relevance to members of the Democratic Party in Congress opposing civil rights for blacks, or to state governments practicing and legislating discrimination against blacks.
Your above claim if not referring to the Republican Party – as you now claim that you never meant that this was a party they could get their planks on – can then refer only to the Democratic Party, if you did not mean Republican.
But no one is going to believe that you were simultaneously saying it’s not an issue of this party or that party, but rather these Democrats were joining the Democratic Party.
Zero sense.
Now if you want to be straightforward and come out and say that the Democratic Party is the party of historical opposition by very very many of its member politicians to civil rights for blacks and towards segregation and was the party in control and responsible for these things in the 60s and prior as they controlled the states in question, and the Republican Party was not responsible for this, both these being contrary to popular belief, be my guest.
Perhaps you have a good explanation for a man who:
– at age 26 wrote “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… 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, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds”
– two or three years later wrote "“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation”
– was not only a KKK member but earned the positions of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops
– and filibustered the Civil Rights Act
being only three years after that made part of the Democratic leadership, made Senate Majority Whip in 1971 and Senate Majority Leader in 1977?
And for that matter is this very day the President of the Senate, third in line to the Presidency of the United States?
Isn’t this a double standard towards racism? The Democratic Party should have shunned Robert Byrd from the beginning, not exalted him throughout his entire career including through to today.
This song screwed over mccain.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You had written:
The statement makes no sense if you had no intent of implying the Republican Party was one they could “get their planks on.” You could not have meant the States’ Rights Democratic Party or the American Independent Party, as it was not members of these parties that for example filibustered the Civil Right Act, or ran the Southern state governments. There were Presidential candidates who ran as members of these parties – and lost – but that pretty much is it. They have no relevance to members of the Democratic Party in Congress opposing civil rights for blacks, or to state governments practicing and legislating discrimination against blacks.
[/quote]
Strom Thurmond. Former presidential candidate who won nearly all the deep south in the 48’ election as the State’s Rights candidate, is the same Strom Thurmond of the Republican party who holds the US record for longest filibuster when he attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond before 48’ was a member of the Democratic party.
Jesse Helms pre 70s was a Democrat when that party was the figure head for racial segregation. He switched parties during the democratic realignment and joined the republicans. As a republican he continued to attempt to have the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act repealed. He continued to campaign against busing, the MLK holiday all way into the mid 80s.
so yes theres complete relevance and it was the same people who were filibustering civil rights. the same democrats who voted against desegregation, who then managed to survived democratic realignment, continued their platform on 3rd parties, and even still managed to survive after those failures as republicans and never dropped their efforts.
but yes youre right on one thing. byrd was garbage as i said before. i dont vote for either party at the national level (same party in my opinion) and im not defending democrats at all. Its just a retardation of history to say only one of those parties was responsible for standing in the way of civil rights, it was all of the parties, but more specifically a core group of politicians who went from party to party, and some like byrd who stayed in the same party.
Maybe the problem is that you write things that don’t at all represent what you mean. Or you claim different meaning once shown wrong. Don’t know which.
You stated:
And of course they never did get the Republican Party to adopt any plank of civil rights opposition.
You are apparently trying to claim that your talk of planks had nothing to do with planks.
You claim:
When the fact is that the States’ Rights Democratic Party dissolved in 1948 and in fact the Democrats I spoke of WERE DEMOCRATS, members of the same party as exists today.
And in your concluding post rather than facing facts and recognizing that yes, the Democratic Party is the one that had a high percentage of opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as previous efforts, and is the one that controlled the states discriminating against blacks and even imposing segregation.
Instead you produce a very small number of Democrats who turned Republican to try to support the argument that it was really not a party issue.
Sorry, there was a clear party difference, and the Democrats were the party loaded with racists / anti-civil-rights politicians.
Obviously you’re not going to admit it for whatever reason, and instead are going to cry “Strom Thurmond!”
Now if Thurmond were a KKK member or had statements similar to Byrd’s you’d have a point as I cited Byrd, but as he did not, he has nothing to do with the fact that it was principally Democrats in the Sixties, and earlier, that opposed civil rights for blacks and entirely Democrats that legislated segregation. Which was the subject.
At least your points prove the point I was making about the effectiveness of the propaganda. You’re unable to break free of it despite the facts being presented to you, and instead you spin out alternate “realities.”
Yeah, yeah, you go and believe that it wasn’t Democrats that in large numbers opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was members of the States’ Rights Democratic Party. Right.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And in your concluding post rather than facing facts and recognizing that yes, the Democratic Party is the one that had a high percentage of opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as previous efforts, and is the one that controlled the states discriminating against blacks and even imposing segregation.
Instead you produce a very small number of Democrats who turned Republican to try to support the argument that it was really not a party issue.[/quote]
[i]Civil Rights Act of 1964
By party and region
Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
-
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
-
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
-
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
-
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
- Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
- Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
- Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
- Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
[/i]
Kinda looks like a north-south issue to me… how many of those southern counties went red after '64? How many still are red today?
Hmmm… do you think that the civil rights act affected the democratic party at all? (again) How many of those southern counties went red after '64? How many still are red today?
[quote]Obviously you’re not going to admit it for whatever reason, and instead are going to cry “Strom Thurmond!”
Now if Thurmond were a KKK member or had statements similar to Byrd’s you’d have a point as I cited Byrd, but as he did not, he has nothing to do with the fact that it was principally Democrats in the Sixties, and earlier, that opposed civil rights for blacks and entirely Democrats that legislated segregation. Which was the subject.[/quote]
Think we can talk about, like, the 70’s-00’s too? Or are we limiting ourselves for some reason?
[quote]At least your points prove the point I was making about the effectiveness of the propaganda. You’re unable to break free of it despite the facts being presented to you, and instead you spin out alternate “realities.”
Yeah, yeah, you go and believe that it wasn’t Democrats that in large numbers opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was members of the States’ Rights Democratic Party. Right.
[/quote]
More or less it was the “southern block” … and most of these switched parties after '64… Someone here might have been swallowing some propaganda…
WE CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT BEFORE '64!!! AND IF WE TALK ABOUT '64, WE FOCUS ON THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION, NOT THAT THE DEMOCRATS PUSHED IT THROUGH!!!
