The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community

Kuuleme T. Stephens

I found this article written in 2008 and I just had to feature it here! It is some interesting reading, and I do encourage others to do research and look forthemselves!!! I was “born” into the Democrat Party, most of my family members are Democrats! It was not until later on (after I joined the military, and was out on my own in the real world) that I began to hear things about the Republican Party and began to research who was actually for the Black Community , Ending Slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement and who was not. I think it is very important that people expose themselves to and know accurate history, not just the stuff that you have been spoon fed from the Left, other family members, and friends. If people would educate themselves, this Country wouldn’t be going down the drain so fast! I hope you enjoy the article and please share this with any and every Liberal friend (Black, White or Any Race) that you may have, so they might have a chance to  learn accurate history and educate themselves as well!

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.May 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Posted in Democrat Party, K.K.K  |  18 Comments

Our nation’s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

The  Democrats:
  • Democrats fought to expand slavery  while Republicans fought to end it.
  • Democrats passed those  discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
  • Democrats supported and passed the  Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
  • Democrats supported and passed the  Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
  • Democrats supported and backed the Dred  Scott Decision.
  • Democrats opposed educating blacks and  murdered our teachers.
  • Democrats fought  against anti-lynching laws.
  • Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia,  is well-known for having been a “Kleagle”  in the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West  Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil  Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from  passage.
  • Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by  Republicans.
  • Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
  • Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal  government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
  • Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
  • Democrat President Franklin D.  Roosevelt’s choice for  vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in  Kansas City in  1922.
  • Democrat President Franklin D.  Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against  lynching.
  • Democrat President Franklin D.  Roosevelt opposed  integration of the armed  forces.
  • Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of  the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  • Democrats supported and backed Judge  John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
  • Democrats supported the School Board of  Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka  Kansas.
  • Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
  • Democrats were who Dr. Martin  Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were  fighting.
  • Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox  “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
  • Democrat Governor George Wallace stood  in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be  segregation forever.
  • Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried  to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
  • Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights  Act.
  • Democrat President John F.  Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr.  King.
  • Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr.  King wiretapped and investigated by the  FBI.
  • Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
  • Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William  Fulbright in  1966-67.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the  Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted  against the 1965 Voting Rights  Act.
  • Southern Democrats opposed desegregation  and integration.

Democrats opposed:

  1. The Emancipation  Proclamation
  2. The  13th Amendment
  3. The  14th Amendment
  4. The  15th Amendment
  5. The Reconstruction Act of  1867
  6. The Civil Rights of  1866
  7. The Enforcement  Act of 1870
  8. The Forced Act of  1871
  9. The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871
  10. The Civil Rights  Act of 1875
  11. The Freeman  Bureau
  12. The Civil Rights  Act of 1957
  13. The Civil Rights  Act of 1960
  14. The  United State Civil Rights Commission

Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the  following legislation:

The Republicans:
  • Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over  the objection of Democrats.
  • Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
  • Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights  legislation in Congress.
  • Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks  freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
  • Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights  legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
  • Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to  desegregate the schools.
  • Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
  • Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
  • Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  • Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which  prohibited discrimination in housing.
  • Republican and black  American,  A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on  Washington.

The 1964 Civil  Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153  yes, 91  no),  but 80 percent of the Republicans  (136  yes, 35  no),  voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the  bill  (46  yes, 21  no),  82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it  (27  yes, 6  no).

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African-Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African-Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African-American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African-Americans face today. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.


*** Update***

Since the writing of the article back in 2008, the numbers of Black Americans in our House and Senate are as follows:

During the Reconstruction Era(1863-1877)

  1. 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives
  2. 2 Republicans in the Senate
  3. 0 Democrats in the House of Representatives
  4. 0 Democrats in the Senate

During the Modern Era(1877-present)

  1. 5 Republicans in the House of Representatives
  2. 1 Republican in the Senate
  3. 99 Democrats in the House of Representatives
  4. 3 Democrats in the Senate
  5. 1 Independent in the House of Representatives

As you can see, the party that the Blacks started off in was indeed the Republican Party. It was only after the Reconstruction Era ended and the Modern Era was issued in that the Black Community flocked to the Dixiecrat (Democrat) Party. Why did this change over occur for the Black Community to go from being Republicans to Democrats???? There is all kinds of speculation on that! My belief (which may not be yours) is that the Democrat Party and the Klan saw that they had to do something. It was essentially a power-grab that they intended to win. They were loosing power fast and they didn’t want to lose all of their power. Knowing that the majority of Blacks were still fairly uneducated (especially when it came to politics), they did the only thing they could do! They ripped off their sheets, introduced the words “help” and “free” into the picture, and off and running was the Democrat Party for the Black Community. The Democrat Party only saw the Black Community as a bunch of  “useful idiots” and their ticket to power!!!! Think about it……………

346 thoughts on “The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community

  1. sorry to be so late to the discussion, but i have long been of the opinion that the enslavement of American blacks never ended.

    i’m a white 60 year-old man, who lacks the historical awareness that most of the posters here share. all i know, is that at the age of 15, i once remarked to my father that if i were black, i’d probably be militant too – like the Panthers of our time. to my surprise, he didn’t disagree. in retrospect, i’m thinking that as an ex-track & field athlete, Navy boxing champ, and one of the original Navy Seals (first called Scouts & Raiders) – my old man had a healthy respect of everyone he competed with – black or white – because he could only add that people have a right to get angry when they’re not treated right.

    the other day i was listening to some old Gil Scott-Heron stuff.. obviously, many blacks at that time were convinced that they wren’t being ‘treated right’, and they wouldn’t be ‘treated right’ until they gained access to the ‘white’ political system that had no interest in them. It pains me to think how disappointed black men my age must have been as they witnessed their fellow blacks getting access to the system, without making any real changes to the black communities they represent.

    for decades, black men and women have won elections – but where is the progress? .
    the cycle of poverty, ignorance, and violence of 50+ years remains intact.
    you’d think that over time things would get better – even if by accident.

    i’m sorry, but as far as i can tell, these black leaders are pimping out their people’s votes to maintain the status quo of the real power brokers in the Democratic party. and make no mistake.. these powerful white Democrats are keeping generation after generation of black Americans enslaved.

    to make matters worse for black Americans, these same ‘established’ Democrats are now turning their efforts to increasing the population and dependence of new generations of Latino voters. they’ve shown they have no interest in embracing a true socialist state. that would threaten their power, and the financial gains attained from their power.. so the establishment Democrats cannot promote a dramatic rise in taxes, for fear of losing elections – and power. so then, where will the money come from – to secure the dependence of this new set of ‘slaves’? from the money being spent on maintaining their old ‘slaves’.

    Things will only get progressively worse for black-americans.

    • I’m not sure why you think a socialist state equates with freedom. Or why you think a socialist state isn’t the same thing as a Democratic Party state. Do you believe Obamacare isn’t a page right out of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?

      • i don’t think that at all. i was trying to emphasize the hypocrisy of some very affluent and influential Democrats in their public acceptance of a selective ‘socialist’ state that forces working men and women of all races to subsidize a dependent class who’ve never been given their fair chance to flourish. this form of socialism doesn’t promote freedom for any of it’s victims.. it builds resentment in the working class, as it reinforces hopelessness in the lower class.

        for the last 50+ years, this lower class has predominantly been black-americans. they’re betrayed by those they trust – time after time. the devils that invite them to stand behind and bear witness to their disingenuous sermons on racial and economic justice, cast them back to their subsidized housing developments with barely enough food stamps in their pocket to feed themselves – as soon as the media turns their cameras off! it’s obvious and despicable, and i just don’t understand why more blacks don’t see it.

        50+ years of a future that never happened, is now in the past.. how many more generations of black men and women will allow themselves to be captured and sold at the Democratic market square before they realize that only racists could hold them in such low esteem for so long. where are the MLKs and MalcomXs gone? black pride is human pride. we should all have a chance to be proud.. to feel respected. not because some lying fool tells us we’re entitled to be – but because we’ve taken our shot and earned it.

      • I drew that conclusion when you said that established Democrats “have no interest in embracing a true socialist state…that would threaten their power”.

        Well, maybe…if a full-blown communist state would better serve their purposes.

        And it would.

  2. Pingback: The Republican Party Is Known For What Traits | Drowkiller5

  3. This article is seriously misinformed and highlights the fact the writer obviously doesn’t understand the complexities of the evolution of both our major political parties. She must go back to the Civil war to attempt to back up her claim. Even then, the author is cherry picking examples and leaving out large chunks of history, context and fact. The only thing today’s Republican Party has in common with the “Radical Republicans” of the 1850s and 1860s is the name. The constant reference that modern Republicans make about the GOP being “the Party of Lincoln” falsely infers and tries to convince us that the republican party of today (1965 – 2016) is inclusive of minorities, principled in regards to the poor and disadvantage.

    While Lincoln argued that he was personally against slavery on moral grounds, he wasn’t opposed to the institution of slavery as long as it was held to its existing boundaries. Lincoln, in essence, was against the expansion of slavery and frequently stated that it didn’t mean he was for black equality (he wasn’t) but he did view slavery as America’s curse. Lincoln DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES. Lincoln resisted his party’s call for emancipation for two years into the Civil War. Only when the North was losing the war, did Lincoln move to sign the Emancipation Proclamation – and only for states rebelling against the Union. Lincoln could not afford to abolish slavery as six slave-holding states fighting in the Union cause would have defected.

    After the assassination of Lincoln the “Radical Republicans” pushed forward with an even more conservative, pro-slavery President, Andrew Johnson, while he was in place, passing the Reconstruction Amendments (13th – abolishing slavery, 14th – giving citizenship, due process and equal protection to Blacks, 15th – voting rights to black males) and required re-admitted states to abide by the new cultural standards. For nearly 100 years, Southerners said they would never be a part of the party of Lincoln for the party’s abolishing of slavery and so spent most of that time, first as Democrat “Redeemers” eroding the gains of Reconstruction (1877-1896), then as “Dixiecrats” (1901-1968), enforcing segregation politics.

    When Conservative Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, succeeded JFK in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, he picked up the mantle of the 20th Century Civil Rights movement and signed the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, 1965 and 1968, southerners left the party. They showed up in the Republican Party in 1968 (as part of Nixon’s southern strategy) and were in full force in 1980 when Reagan announced his Presidential candidacy.

    Former Dixiecrats Strom Thurman and Trent Lott (and others) became spokespersons for the party in the Reagan Revolution’s Era of “New Optimism.” Dixie’s new optimists became the party’s leaders in the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 (Newt Gingrich) and the neo-Conservatism became entrenched by Bush I and through the 1990s, where, by the time “W” came about, conservative ideologues ran (and still run) the Party.

    One only needs to look at presumptive republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to see the state of the republican party is in.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

  4. We should forget about what the Democratic / Republican parties meant or did in the past. What’s important is the beliefs and actions of the current members of these parties. I grew up in the 70s and 80s a very dedicated Republican. I didn’t always agree with or understand the decisions that politicians made, but I was young and often couldn’t read between the lines and interpret their motivations.

    As I got older I started to pay attention. I traveled around the world, met lots of interesting people and experienced many different ways of living. I started to notice that the conservative mindset that many have in this country is quite unique. I actually think that this mindset is a product of the great size and relative isolation of our country. Many people never actually get out of the country except for quick visits to Mexico; a third world country with a corrupt government. This helps to cement the idea that America is the best country in the world and that our freedom exceeds that of any other nation. This is a dangerously wrong assumption.

    This is what is at the heart of the problem with being conservative in America today. By definition, a conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes. Why change what is already perfect? Try telling a true conservative that America is not the best country in the world and enjoy the knee jerk reaction. All rationality goes to the wind. Conservatism is incompatible with the current state of America as nothing can be improved while one fights to keep it the same, or return it to the past!

    Another problem with the conservative mindset is that it breeds a way of thinking that is dangerous to society as a whole, yet can appear as a virtue when viewed on the surface. I am talking about the tendency for conservatives to be unable to widen their scope beyond their home or small community. These folks would do well to listen to Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. I often hear conservatives raging about welfare, health care, education or basically any hint that a service will be ‘socialized’. People should understand that sometimes they will have to pay a bit more in order for everyone to benefit. They must look at the big picture. Conservatives get in a sort of mental loop worrying about the small fraction of society that will abuse social services. They even go so far as to compare them with communism.

    The conservative mindset has its place. Many successful European nations know this and are in fact very conservative. The trick is to know when is the right time to be conservative. The time to be conservative is after you have been liberal long enough to get things right. Once things are working properly, it is time to conserve. Why change what is working?

    • You completely ignored the entire article, once again liberal fantasy overshadow’s
      Reality snd common sence
      Which i s the essence of right wing conservative values, please dont drink the koolaid

    • +Rick Nuthman II By wanting to forget what the Democratic /Republican parties stood for in the past! In this way we do not have to deal with the uncomfortable truth that it was liberal democrats who abused their fellow man through the sale of human beings. Through the splitting up of families against their will. Through the total & complete loss of their dignity. It was the Republican party who took a stand & said no more. Today the democratic party continues its total & complete loss of dignity for our African American brothers & sisters with the onset of planned parenthood. Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood referred to African Americans as “human weeds” “reckless breeders” & “human beings who should never have been born” Sanger’s Goal was to eliminate as many blacks as she possibly could. It is not a coincidence that over 80% of planned parenthood abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods. through the belief that abortion is a legal choice, it disguises the reality of what is really taking place. Which is the murder of innocence. Remember, it is easy to be pro-choice when your life isn’t on the line. The democratic party has this idea that some people should contribute more than others. I believe this is also a continuation in the loss of dignity for our fellow man. The Truth Is, that everyone should contribute, & everyone should contribute equally. (Percentage wise with no loopholes) It is through equal contribution that each man has an inner pride that he is contributing to society. It is the kind of inner pride that President JFK spoke of when he said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country” Equal contribution gives an inner satisfaction & inner dignity that is not present with the idea that some should be asked to pay more. Democrats have come up with a concept where they believe it is somehow okay to redistribute someone else’s wealth. This kind of thinking creates an expectation in liberals that they are never satisfied unless they are recieving their unfair share.

  5. Pingback: What is the general consensus regarding Donald Trump? - Page 10 - This Board Rocks

  6. Pingback: The K.K.K. is the Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party – Absolute Truth from the Word of God

  7. Pingback: African American lawmakers say GOP block to SC is racist - Page 8

  8. Pingback: The best bet is to allow Obama to pick the next Supreme court justice. - Page 11

  9. I want to repeal ObamaCare and institute something different… so by the argument of a few dimwits here, that makes me a “Progressive” because I want to change something rather than conserve it. Utter genius.

    • Affordable Care Act only costs every man an extra 50,000$ over their lifetimes. Lifetime healthcare costs for women 361,200$ for men 268,700$. Act makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge women more than men.

  10. For everyone claiming that the parties “switched sides”…

    The parties never switched sides, what happened instead was much more dubious. Democrats didn’t switch their ideology – they have never stopped trying to keep blacks under their boot heel – they just switched their strategy and found a new way to “keep blacks on the plantation.” Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty promised free food (Food Stamp Act of 1964), free housing and free medical care, and not for a harvest of cotton, but instead for an annual crop of votes. He admitted to it while speaking with two governors aboard Air Force One when he said, “I’ll have them ni**ers voting Democrat for the next two hundred year!”

    And speaking of LBJ’s War on Poverty, and what it’s done to this country over the last 50 years – he’s been correct about his prediction so far. One of the things they did was go around apprising women of their availability to welfare, provided there was not man in the house. Black babies born to single mothers, outside of wedlock, went from 24 percent in 1965 up to 75 percent today. Even in the white community it went from three percent in 1965 up to 25 percent today. Democratic policies killed the family structure, told women then did not need men, that they could marry the government instead, and when you look at how much was spent on welfare during that time compared to babies born without fathers, they are practically parallel. It was a nuclear bomb dropped on this country, and not just on the black community but on society in general.

    And with regards to the notion “How come the timeline of how racist Democrats really are stops in the 60’s?”

    It’s hasn’t just stopped there, Republicans are fighting that battle every day. When they try to cut social welfare and entitlement spending, as backwards it may sound, that is actually trying to HELP. As I mentioned above, the Democratic War on Poverty policies from the 60’s have destroyed the value of the family structure, especially in the black communities, and it has created a breeding ground for crime and poverty. Look at Detroit or Baltimore, some of the poorest cities with the highest black population, and it has everything to do with those cities being run EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats for 50 years. Hell, take a look at Baltimore today, the city is 45% black, City Council is 100% Democrat and the majority is black, the majority of the top ranking officers and command staff are all black, the Mayor is black, the Attorney General is black and yet 24% of the population below the poverty level in Maryland live in Baltimore, and 27% of them are without a HS diploma. Hows that for panting the picture of how wonderful Democrats have been over the last 50 years?

    Another example? The Clintons. In 1987, while serving as Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton signed Act 116 reaffirming in the state flag design that “The blue star above the word “ARKANSAS” is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.” He also used the Confederate flag extensively in his Presidential campaign with V.P. Al Gore – you know, Al Gore, whose father Al Gore Sr. (D-TN), voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And don’t forget in 1995, Clinton gave a eulogy for his friend and political mentor, Arkansas senator William Fulbright (D-AR), the same William Fulbright who was a staunch segregationist, opposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and one of 99 Democrats who signed the Southern Manifesto in opposition of Brown v. Board of Education. And now, 50 years later, we have the wife of William Fulbright’s understudy running for for President. But I thought Democrats switched sides, right?

    • I wish to use some of what you wrote in a post i am working on. But I want to give you due credit do you have a link or Name for me to use beyond Ryan?

    • Ryan you have the economic IQ of a fruit fly.

      ” Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty promised free food (Food Stamp Act of 1964), free housing and free medical care, and not for a harvest of cotton, but instead for an annual crop of votes. He admitted to it while speaking with two governors aboard Air Force One when he said, “I’ll have them ni**ers voting Democrat for the next two hundred year!””

      The U,S has had a shortage of jobs since the end of WWII. When blacks were finally fully integrated into the U.S workforce it was on the tail end of the 2nd industrial revolution. The artificial economic advantages that the U.S had gained from the destruction in Europe were lost going into the 70’s as the rest of the world caught up to U.S manufacturing capacity. White Flight had already started in the 1950’s and if you actually bothered to read any of the Congressional reports on poverty from the 1960’s they all say the same thing. there is a lack of jobs in most major U.S metros and they pay too little in wages.

      I suggest actually studying the extremely complex problem that is concentrated urban poverty and why it exists in varying degrees in every single country in the world, that would be 196 out of 196 countries. Even Canada has a problem with concentrated urban poverty

    • Here’s a little clarity on the “switching sides” statement. The party of Lincoln was a progressive party and the Democratic was conservative until Johnson signed the civil right’s BIll into law. The conservatives abandoned the Dem.party and flocked to Rep.party and the progressives went to Dem. party. All the horrible associations Dem.party was when it consisted of conservatives, today’s. Rep. Party

    • Bill Clinton reformed welfare getting millions off of it, helping out. Conservatives have always been racist. Progressives are pro-civil right’s. The Dem.party were conservatives until 1964 when they abandoned it because Johnson’s civil right’s law. They flocked to Rep.party and the progressives went to Dem.party. Hope that clears your perspectives on the big “switch”

      • That doesn’t make any sense. Only 6 republican senators voted against the law with an overwhelming majority voting for it. More republicans voted for the law than democrats. Why would this shift the dynamic between the parties.

      • I have been reading all the post from last year where you said “Jesus said feed the poor.
        He also said if you do not work you do not eat”. We have too many people who can afford
        Cigaretts, fancy cars, jewelry, etc. but still want hand-outs. And by the way, only in Amweica do we have a woman who knows she had lied to families of men who died because of her neglect , and just wants to pass it off. Now she want to put her womanizer
        Husband back in government. That is disgraceful! But it will happen! And before you add forgiveness…. He NEVER ask the people of this country to forgive him.. He was too proud!! One day the consequences will come because God’s word says so!!!

  11. Pingback: PROOF that Democrats Have Been and Continue to Be the ENEMY of Blacks Since the Civil War – Absolute Truth from the Word of God

  12. Pingback: It Gets Harder From Here For Bernie Sanders - Page 2 - Defending The Truth Political Forum

  13. You guys are all idiots, we shouldn’t identify as republicans or democrats. But as citizens of the United States of America. Do you really think this arguing of which party is right is ever going to end? What kind of democracy has only two “real” parties. Shit this could keep going back and forward for centuries. Why do we let two private organizations keep going back and forth like this??? There’s a reason a record setting 43% of American voters identify as independents… And adding parties would just make things even worse, making this nation even more divided. So what’s the solution you ask? Taking it all the way back to 1776 and have a one party super system. Making voting more about who would best represent our nation, and not having it be about picking the lesser of two evils.

    • To the extent that Dems try to rewrite history and repaint the Republicans as the traditional racists, it needs to be refuted. Have you heard the Dems’ latest argument? That Republicans have changed into Democrats so that it was actually Democrats who historically supported civil rights. They say it with a straight face, too!

      • forget Democrats versus Republicans. It is conservative versus liberals and it is the conservatives that have always opposed Civil Rights.

      • So conservatives oppose civil rights? Of course we do, because liberals have created a new definition of “civil rights”…specifically welfare, affirmative action, forced busing, and anything else they can freely give in exchange for votes.

        An example of a real civil right is the Right to Life, not surprisingly opposed by liberals.

      • Conservatives are your enemy. That’s what the Dem.parry was until 1964 when they flocked to Rep.party out of protest to civil right’s law. Research why there is such a need for welfare and you will find out it is from conservative policies,social and economic. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Without welfare those ruined people addicted to handouts would have starved instead of lived. The Rep.party wants to abolish it today. Jesus was all about feeding the hungry. Today’s Dem.party is way more compassionate(progressives)

    • I like your message. I have always thought that it is a big game. That most elections are rigged to some extent. They do want us divided, that way we stay focused on the other party instead of what is best for the country. That is why I am voting for Trump. Yes he is an egotistical asshole.but he is an outsider who isn’t afraid to rock the boat. I believe he is running for the right reasons, he loves this country and is sick and tired of watching it go further and further downhill. I saw a clip of an old Oprah Winfrey show, it had to be twenty hears ago, he looks like he’s in his 30’s. She asked him if he would ever like to run for office.
      He said “No”. Fast forward and he has had enough. He could go live anywhere, do anything he wants, with his wealth. He is fed up and sick and tired of the hogwash that comes out of Washington constantly, just like the rest of American, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. If he actually makes it, it is going to be a shock how many dems voted for him. Okay, sorry about going off on a tangent. But I too am very passionate about it. It is just crazy all the idiotic things they do, both sides. He will not be an answer to my prayers, but I believe him when he says he is going to make China and Mexico play on an even field. Enough said, I don’t care is don’t agree with me, I just had to purge. Happy New Year and may 2016 be good year for the world.

    • Jesus Christ living inside a person. This is the only change that will make a positive difference towards our Republic.

      Gentleman,
      While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the New World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, Oct 11, 1798 to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.

    • Respectfully, which is tough to say when you start off calling everyone idiots, the one party system would never work. You would have 3000 people on a ballot, no way of intelligently vetting them, no debates could widdle that down in a years time to two people that were not pretty much polar opposites. You’d never end up with two moderates, and therefore would be simply a mirror image of what we have today, only their would be the one very, very divided party, which would evolve into two parties probably by the next election. I simply think the best thing people can do is pick the candidate that’s benefits themselves, not their neighbors or nation, themselves. Then you would truly have a president of the people, not one whose party members showed up in force. Too many people vote solely on party lines rather than what is best for them based on educating themselves on the issues and how political figures affect those issues.

    • Frankly (Alex M.) your the idiot and it’s exactly people like you who do not know what the hell kind of country you even live in! First off America is a REPUBLIC not a Democracy as you so poorly state! What kind of Democracy has two real parties, your so brainwashed or stupid, you pick! There is no rule or law that says there cannot be other parties besides the major two! I will concede their are barriers and hurdles but that are enacted to prevent anything but the two major parties but some of these where put in place by the founding fathers themselves! I also want to educate you on the difference in a Democracy and a Republic because the founding fathers took great measures to avoid making America a Democracy! They had seen a what a government ruled by a Democracy leads to and eventually would lead to and that was it’s demise (GREECE)! DEMOCRACY= A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. Note: Democratic institutions, such as parliaments, may exist in a monarchy. (MOB RULE) REPUBLIC= A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. We are a Republic with Democratically elected officials and that is a stark difference from the latter! One super pac huh? Read and learn some history and you would know it once was all one party, moron! This party was called the Democratic-Republican Party, and it was organized by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1791. The purpose of the Democratic-Republican Party was to stand in opposition against the Federalist Party in upcoming elections.The outcome of the election was greatly influenced by the Free Soil Party of New York. The Free Soil Party was established for one reason—to oppose the expansion of slavery into the new western states. The Free Soil Party was made up of members from both the Whig Party and the Democratic Party who felt that free men on free soil should remain free. They also fought for the rights of free men in many Midwest and northern states. Because of the party division over this issue, many Democrats voted for General Taylor instead of General Cass, which greatly contributed to the loss of the Democratic Party in the election of 1848. In 1850, Democratic members of Congress passed what is known as the Compromise of 1850, which was a set of bills that attempted to prevent civil war over slavery. The Compromise essentially outlawed slavery in the Western states; however, it also included a bill called the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which demanded that slaves who ran away to northern states be returned to their “masters” in the South. After the Compromise of 1850, Democrats gained small increments of popularity, while the Whig Party began to lose its unity. The Whig Party became more and more divided over the issues of slavery and anti-immigration. In 1852, the Whig Party disbanded, leaving weak opposition against the Democrats for that year’s election. Democrat Franklin Pierce was elected, followed by James Buchanan in 1856. Democrats who opposed slavery eventually left the party and joined those who were left-over from the Whig Party in the North to form the Republican Party in 1854. THATS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE DAMN ARTICLE, AND THANK GOD FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! WITHOUT IT, THE SLAVES WOULD NOT HAVE WON THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO FREEDOM!

  14. This is an interesting read and I think it can be expanded, the Democratic party today is like the Democratic party in the pre-civil war era, it is a party of slavery. The socialist programs it has set up to make all reliant on government, that’s why liberals hate conservatives because we think for our self and believe in self reliance. How many people on welfare do you see learn to become self reliant and independent from government? Liberals want us all to be mindless, thoughtless and uninspiring so they can spoon feed us and destroy the freedoms we enjoy. I also think minorities over use racist charges, in a lot of ways it is the community leaders fail their communities so they blame it on racism, yes there is still racism and unfortunately there always will be, but it is not as rampant as liberals want everyone to believe it to be.

  15. If the Democrat and Republican monikers have been consistently aligned with the same views/platforms from 1863 onward (in other words, if this is really a matter of democrat vs republican and not liberalism vs conservatism), why then does your list of historical examples – of racism/bigotry in the Democratic party and civil rights actions in the Republican party – not extend past the 1960s?

    • Can you name one civil rights act in congress by either party since the 1960’s? I can think of the disabilities act, signed by Ronald Reagan. Had he been like the current president and opposed it, he would have vetoed it. If nothing ‘real’ has happened since the 60’s that would answer your question. How about you give us your list of legitimate legislation since the 1960’s?

    • He just told you why.

      The Dems couldn’t keep them inslaved, jailed or dead, so, they changed their tatics. They started giving them pity, welfare and food stamps and discouraged family while pushing abortion.

      Planned parenthood was founded by a woman who devoted her life to aborting as many black babies as possible.

      There are more abortion clinics in black neighbor hoods
      than anywhere else.
      ALL
      PROVEABLE FACTS!!
      And it started in the 60’s

  16. You Conservatives love trying to take credit for shit you didn’t do, and worshiping radicals, a hundred years AFTER they were radical and relevant.

    I am not going to play your game of Euphemism, Equivocation and Weasel Wording by switching from Republican and Democrats, the Progressive and Conservative.

    Liberals freed the slaves, promoted civil rights, fought for suffrage, got rid of pussies that advocated prohibition, promoted education, equality, gay rights, social security, rural electricity and infrastructure, besides just military. We even murdered the traitors of the slaveholding south, and stomped the King and Country Redcoats pussies that did not want change into a sovereign nation.

    So you fine folks can play the political party shell game or Rebubbaklan and Demotards all you want, but at the end of this thread, Liberal/Progressives caused those changes and progress, and Conservatives tried to prevent or retarded the advancements.

    Progressives fought and won those changes, conservatives, well…always on the wrong side of history. By definition.

    • …and don’t forget–today’s liberal/progressives murdered baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown by the abortionist’s bloody hands.

      They couldn’t buy her vote, but you can read her story and see her picture on her gravestone at findagrave.

      In the case of Sarah, we Republicans are liberal again.

      • So you are either claiming that the Republican party is progressive, or you are using intellectual dishonesty, weasel wording and willful ignorance to claim that the Democrats were and still are conservative and racist Which is it brah? Can’t be both.

        You don’t seem very progressive to me, in fact were I a betting man, I would bet you fly the treasonists flag, the flag of losers, (because they lost) as a decorative bumper sticker or auto tag. Like on the Duke of Hazzard.

        Out before heritage. (Heritage of being traitors and bad with Bowies and Springfields)

        You just wanted to starve her, put her in poverty, tell her worthless platitudes about dreams and hard work and say freedum’ a lot, then watch Sally end up in prison at worst (Funding your Private Prison Profiteering from slavery in the least free nation on Earth)and as a soldier for your fake WMD hunting Oil Pirate Socialist Military. (Capitalists militaries are called mercenaries, and they have no country to call home. Except Somalia.)

        Quality of life,is far more important than forcing a women under gunpoint and capital punishment to give the state a full term rape baby from her brother. Or as your type call it, a gift from gods and future member of team Force Democracy or a prisoner, whichever. As long as they don’t need help, from the shithole you forced them into. Research the percentages of deviants coming from unwanted births. How can you support such misery and additional costs on society, when you are supposedly fiscally….I can’t even say it, another joke.

        How the hell did you get on a woman’s health issue anyway, I thought you Republicans were claiming liberal principles in this thread? Can we prosecute men with vasectomies that murdered trillions in their snip and mass genocide of the unborn?

        You are reaching like the Benny Gazzy committee head. I bet you have veins popping and sweating like he did too, because his spaghetti he was the browsing, wasn’t sticking.

        Vote Ben Gazzi 2016!

      • What are you smoking? Do you read your own posts? They get nuttier and nuttier as the night goes on.

        As to who’s liberal/progressive and who’s conservative, those are just labels–names if you would–that merely identify a person’s political persuasion. Maybe we conservatives really are liberal again. After all, Roe vs. Wade is the moral equivalent of Dred Scott. “My body!” “My property!” Democrats up to their old tricks again, giving one individual unrestricted dominance over another.

        Now who, pray tell, are you to judge who or what Sarah Brown would have become had she lived?

        And its you liberal/progressive Democrats who care so much about the useless vermin you just described. Hate them while they’re still innocent, love them when they become deviants.

        And no, I don’t fly the Democratic flag, so don’t take up betting.

    • All Dems should pay reciprocity to the Republicans for slavery. My Republican ancestors lost their lives in the civil war to free the slaves from the Democrats.

      • I think you mean “reparations”, and I thoroughly agree. How hypocritical of the left to accuse Republicans of taking credit for things that happened a hundred years ago, yet their political wing is the primary moving force demanding reparations to Blacks for something that happened a hundred years ago.

        I think Democrats should be ID’d by voting registration records and forced to pay reparations to Blacks out of the Democratic Party’s own bank account. To Blacks and to Republicans.

      • Bull shit I , am from the North and we won the civil war some of my family
        where in the war and fought as well and dead because of it. Our family has always been Liberal
        Democrat THIS IS NOTHING BUT, BULL SHIT

      • Cindy, another Democrat taking credit for what the Republicans did. Why don’t you take credit for the “Republican KKK”? You’d be right.

    • Why is al the states south of mason-Dixon line red and most north are blue? They didn’t switch party’s the party’s switched ideals. The Republican party consisted of liberals and Democratic party. Consisted of conservatives way back. Sometime around Teddy Roosevelt (maybe because he broke up the big monopolies and redistributed the wealth from the rich to the poor; does that sound like a modern Republican?) liberals were elected in democratic party and conservatives were elected in republican party. Conservatives. Cut social program while giving tax breaks to the rich. Democrats expand social programs and reduce the tax burden on the poor. It really boils down to big money. Conservatives always have been in the pockets of the rich. Back in the 1850’s there were more millionaires. In Nachus Mississippi than any other one city in the world,the democratic party was conservative, thus dixiecrats. Now fast forward to today. Democrats support immigration and social programs. Republicans want to close our borders and cut social programs. Check out voting records of typical democrat pre 1850 and the typical democrat of today and republican pre 1850 vs modern republican record. Totally different ideology. Can’t dispute the facts….darn!!! Forgot about climate change. Well just take a good look at the republican primary. What a bunch of nuts. Thanks for the information age so that people’s can finally see the truth….. But there are still ones who deny it. The truth shall set you free. By the way, I lived in south most of my life. Every conservative I know, and I debate with many are racist bigots and us few liberals down here are not.

    • Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, left office with no National debt. He did this by stealing my forefather’s land (Indian Land) and selling it off. Historically, the Dems do a piss poor job but screw you with a straight face. Current President will have doubled the National debt when he leaves office in 10 months…When it took 161 years to get it to 10 trillion, he got it to 20 trillion in 8 years….a lot to be proud of right there! Chain us to hope, get us on welfare with no help to get off of it….bravo numbskulls….bravo!

    • So civil war era, Lincoln era Republicans were in fact “liberal” and believed in big government. Republicans favored an expansion of federal power because that’s what was needed to pass the Amendments of postwar Reconstruction era. Democrats were conservative, because they wanted to conserve the way smaller government control that did NOT protect blacks. But fast forward to today, the reason why Republicans are now considered conservatives, is because blacks do have the same freedom to go out in the wild blue yonder, and pursue a career as a policeman, fireman, lawyer, doctor, neurosurgeon or president. We don’t see a need to continue to liberally expand government for more and spend more and give away more the way that progressives and Democrats do. The parties never switched sides, Republicans / conservatives are not racist or anti-black, it’s just that Democrats realized in the 60’s that if they switch the strategy, and promise more and more handouts, then they can “keep blacks on the plantation” not for a harvest of cotton, but instead for a nice annual crop of votes.

    • How did the liberals free the slaves? Last I checked history Lincoln was from the Republican Party. I forgot. Liberals like to rewrite history.

    • Some professor on Quora gave the most absurd answer to the question, “Is it true that Republicans and Democrats switched places? Why?”

      By the way, the professor has yet to acknowledge a reply…. That was five months ago. Best recognize yo!

      The parties never switched places…

      I’m not too surprised though to read this from a history professor, or someone that claims to be. I’ll tell you right now that just because you’re a professor, doesn’t mean you’re teaching the right thing (or the wrong thing), or if your point of view is even getting in the way of historical objectivity.

      I am not insulting you, but I am going to call you out for twisting history to favor your current biasy. And if you aren’t teaching this way, than I apologize, but if you are, than you should also know that professors aren’t to indoctrinate, rather to teach confirmed information and allow students to decipher this for themselves… But… The parties never switched places.

      Ever since the birth of the Republican party in 1854, Repubs were strong supporters of abolition. Meanwhile, Democrats had KKK members in Congress and Albert Gore Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of ’64, but gave a hell of a lengthy filibuster. Republicans championed the Constitutional amendments ending slavery (13th), giving African-Americans the right to vote, as well, securing that very right (14th: granting African-Americans citizenship and equal protection. The 15th amendment attempted to secure the right to vote for newly freed slaves).

      The Republicans — especially in the year of 1872 — was also mindful of its obligations to appeal to ‘the loyal women of America’ for their noble devotions to the cause of freedom. Why the Republicans didn’t consider giving women the right to vote at this time is beyond me, but later down the road, it was again the Republicans that led a platform for women’s suffrage to pass the 19th amendment.

      This was first introduced in the Senate by Ca. Repub Aaron A Sargent in 1878. Unfortunately it was lost under the drivel of the committee for years and years until it resurfaced in 1887, but defeated 16 to 34 thanks to whom? The Democrats.

      Years go by again and in 1914 it came back into play again… even though Congress was constantly bombarded with it throughout the years. This can be further researched by author Alana Jeydel’s “Political Women: The Women’s Movement, Political Institutions, the Battle for Women’s Suffrage and the ERA”.

      Democrats critique it as symbolic only and they continue to argue that Republicans tried keeping the women suffragists, suffering, while getting the 15th amendment ratified. But these efforts are hard-pressed and Democrats to this day cannot provide any source that points to factual evidence (which is one of the reasons the Big Lie emerged that the parties just switched places).

      Republican wives of those in Congress set up large gatherings to support the movement and many of these women introduced ideas unto Congress… but while all this was going on, Democrats refused to accept Republican inquiries even though much of the party spoke on women’s behalf.

      Now even though the KKK had died down much at this time, there was still a lot of resentment against African-Americans and guess what party they were in? That’s right… The Democrats. These folks were actively thwarting the voting rights of black men just added to the Constitution via the recent ratification of securement and thus had little incentive to allow black women, also, to win voting rights.

      Now, even though Democrats claim they were the party of states’ rights, this isn’t true for two reasons. One from history: Lincoln and two: The most recent, the HERO Act, signed by Mr. Obama. So to explain this: Although I do not feel Lincoln was that great of a president because ultimately he had conflicting ideologies, he felt that it wasn’t right to keep African-Americans from voting — epistemologically speaking — but didn’t exactly care for African-Americans either. This is my personal opinion of course, but I believe Lincoln is largely overrated, even though he did end up keeping the union together — albeit, barely — and really, at the time, shouldn’t have expected anything different as he totally raped the South of states’ rights.

      Two: The HERO Act. Obama recently signed, enacting the HERO Act.. I won’t get into major detail but The HERO Act of 2015 is Title III of S.178, Justice for Victims Trafficking Act of 2015. It amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to operate, within ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a Cyber Crimes Center to provide investigative assistance, training and equipment to support domestic and international investigations by ICE of cyber-related crimes.
      You can read more about that here: President Obama Signs HERO Act of 2015

      Continuing on… Many Democrats seem to believe that Republicans would have been against this, but that is absurd. Many Democrats claim Republicans would be against it because somehow that’d infringe on states’ rights. Which is again, absurd. To be against the HERO Act of 2015 is equal to that of being against Civil Rights. Why would any like-minded individual be in favor of the exploitation of children and sex-trafficking? Again, absurd and completely retarded. Yes I said retarded.

      Moving on… Women finally got their voting rights through the 19th amendment in 1920, but it didn’t exactly pan out in all states, at one time. Democrats were more like, forced into it as the Supreme Court took it on and defended women’s voting rights for good on Feb. 27, of 1922.

      Many Democrats praise LBJ for the Civil Rights… but it was ultimately the Republicans who kept pushing and pushing such. Mind you, these next words are from this “hero” of a politician: That LBJ dude:

      “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.” —LBJ
      There is nothing heroic about this unless you consider this political move; a charade for votes, sympathetic to the cause.

      And today, the MSM is bought and paid for by hundreds, if not thousands of corporate interests that ultimately keep money in politics that keep dividing our country over petty things… Things that should have long ago been over and done with. Shit that practically reflects a corporate plutocracy. So Democrats blame Republicans for being super rich, but the same elitist Democrats are equally wealthy, if not more. Republican candidates are vetted left and right but Democrats are not held to the same standards…

      Honestly I am not either. It’s back and forth, like a pendulum, swinging to and fro like hitch nuts on a highway. The longer one party is in office, the pendulum swings the other for just as long. We’ve come to a point where nothing gets done and only division prolongs our uncertainties. It’s insane! Fking insane!

      You are more than welcome to look all of this up. That’s why I was pretty precise in the history. Go ahead now… And when you reply to me (if you reply to me), make sure it holds substance… or else I won’t take it seriously. Regardless, I’m glad you now have the truth. Cheers.

  17. Wow, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. It’s not a question of Democrats vs Republicans. Those are just the names of the parties. Its the ideologies of those parties that count. Democrats during the 1800s had CONSERVATIVE ideologies while the Republicans had RADICAL / LIBERAL ideologies. Just look at the root word of conservative …. conserve … to maintain, to keep the same. In the 1800s the conservatives wanted to keep the institution of slavery. They wanted to keep their society the same. They didn’t want anything to change… AT ALL. Because they felt everything was the way it should be. During the Civil Rights Movement it was once again the CONSERVATIVES (the ones that felt everything was fine the way it was) that fought against change. It’s no coincidence that the same people who fought for slavery are in the same states that fought against the civil rights movement and now have the highest concentration of republicans.

    • You can’t compare today’s southern Republicans with racist slave-owning Democrats. In the last 30 years millions of northerners have moved south while millions of southerners have moved north (per PEW Research), including the last three Democratic presidents prior to Obama who were southern Democrats. And the current Democratic front-runner is the wife of one of them.

      • Your A Conservative Bill Hedlund, ideologically speaking. Which means you support the Stance of Segregationist and those “Democrats” who ideologically speaking are modern Republicans. Liberls fought for civil rights, and yes Liberals at that time were Republicans. Ideologies vs Political parties. Your arguments goes contrary to the actual ideological views at the time. I suggest you take some time to really study history and social studies first before you misrepresent the facts.

      • EC, so I’m a segregationist am I? Because I go to a church that has a large number of Black members? Because I have supported Black Republicans?

        And your party is just so sensitive to the concerns of the descendants of African-American slaves that they gave us a our first “Black” president who isn’t any more Black than he is White? And who isn’t even a smidgeon descended from African-American slaves?

        Yet your claim to the mantle of “Hero of Blacks” stems from your party’s support for programs such as Affirmative Action…which mysteriously doesn’t apply to Black Republicans. Why don’t you get your racial quotas up to snuff and vote for Ben Carson? You don’t think he’s qualified? So what? Democrats don’t give a rip about qualifications when they hire underqualified members of protected groups for civil service jobs…like fire and police departments.

        In a major liberal Democratic stronghold of a west coast city, racial quotas actually defeated their very own purpose when a position for assistant fire chief was given to a white man instead of a truly more qualified Hispanic…because whites represented 38% of that city’s population and Hispanics were only 10%.

        A Native American cannot even be hired in that city at all because they are only a half % of the population. Two hundred openings would be required in order to hire one single native Sioux, Apache, or Commanche.

        Need I say more?

        Sure, let’s…

        How about those Democrat-sponsored programs that have done so much to create a high quality living standard for Blacks in Detroit and Chicago? And Newark and Oakland etc.

        Isn’t welfare wonderful? Well, if you’re a Democrat buying votes it’s a treasure chest.

        Welfare says Blacks can’t help themselves.

        Affirmative Action says Blacks are to stupid to compete fairly for jobs.

        Forced busing says “Black teachers in Black schools are too stupid to teach, so let’s get little Juwan and little Kiesha out of there and into a white school where actual intelligent white teachers will bring them up to par”.

        We hear the Democrats loud and clear, and theirs is the same voice of racism that voted Democratic in 1856. The same voice, however now condescending…”caring”…

        The voice that says “If we can’t have ’em as slaves, well, we might as well have their vote.

    • Well it’s pretty hard to argue the facts. Which is what this is about, I googled “Democratic & Republican voting records on major issues” and was directed here. The record doesn’t lie. The Dems always are accusing conservatives as being Rich, mean, and are just in it for themselves. Show me facts about how much love the quacks like Senator Byrd from Virginia, showed the black man. What was the Civil War about, Slavery and keeping the south from seceding. Barrack Obama hasn’t done anything good for blacks that will actually help them achieve the American Dream. They figured out in the 60’s that like the article says, offer “Free Shit and help.” Help by the way means keeping them dependent on the government so the dems have their vote.

  18. In 2005, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman, went to the NAACP to specifically apologize for the Southern Strategy. To those in denial of the strategy, it may be interesting to inquire why the leader of the Republican party thought that such a move was necessary, if indeed it never existed. For those same people, simply pulling up the platform of the current Republican party and the numerous contenders will reveal a party preoccupied with limiting personal liberty and restricting rights.

    This is not to say either party is better than another, it simply shows how far we need to move forward to show genuine progress for human rights.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/an-empty-apology.html
    http://mediamatters.org/video/2005/07/14/limbaugh-blasted-mehlmans-renunciation-of-gop-r/133493
    http://www.ontheissues.org/Republican_Party.htm

  19. Pingback: Quora

  20. To read what these right wing fascists claim you would think that Lincoln sent soldiers from Republican states like Mississippi and Alabama to free slaves from Democratic states like New York and Rhode Island.

    • Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[34] A number of historians regard fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both those things.[35][36] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.(This is the text book / Wikipedia view.)
      Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a movement that would strike “against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left”.[43][44] Later the Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right,’ a fascist century.”[45][46] Mussolini stated that fascism’s position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue to fascists: “Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.”[47]

      Just because Mussolini insisted that he leaned “right” doesn’t mean he had a clue. It’s very obvious that he was a leftist dictator that wanted to present himself as a protector of the people like other dictators. Socialists tell everyone that they have the best interests of the populous and they won’t relinquish their “protection” until they die… Like Kim Jong Ill. Thank goodness that Kim Jong Ill was a god and not some petty left wing dictator. Huh?

      So… We are looking at a socialist that claimed that fascists were neither left or right while being a dictator.

      Socialism is leftist. Dictators are leftist. The KKK says that they are socialists.A KKK leader ran for president as a democrat.

      People are very confused, today. They think that Christian and Republican principles are against people. They think that the left (socialist groups) are for the people like the Communist Workers Party. Those damn republicans like Abraham Lincoln want to destroy the rights of cotton loving people everywhere!

      Those damn republicans are against abortion! They want to ruin people’s lives by making it illegal to kill babies! Sounds kinda like, “Those damn republicans want to destroy farms by making it illegal to capture people from other countries and making them slaves!” “Those right wingers call abortion murder.” “What primitives!” Those right wingers are against killing your daughter if she fornicates! What close minded idiots!” “Those right wingers are against sending your children to commit suicide to kill innocent people in the name of God! What jerks!”

      Those right wingers are so crazy, huh? Mostly Christians that have Christian principals like, “whomever here is without sin can cast the first stone” “Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and strength” and “Love everyone else as much as you love yourself”

      Read the story of the “Sheep and the Goats” and get a grip.

      You cheer the murdering of children and encourage slothfulness and sinfulness of people. What is your goal?

      • You are just full of wrong. Socialism is over half of how our Mixed Economy has always worked. Every cent you pay, enables you to read this, drive on roads, have your house put out, clean water and fundes our military.

        You are not even comparing the correct things Dictators and Socialism, is analogous to Capitalism and Despotism.

        One goes on an X one goes on a Y axis. For example, Fascism is the opposite of Communism in its Oligarchic, Nationalist fever, lead by…a Dictator.

        Like our Oligarchy the Rebubbaklans gave us today, but with a fake Constitutional Representative Republic instead of a godhead.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

      • Do you pump gasoline into your car’s exhaust pipe?

        Fundamentalist Christians said don’t do it.

        Liberals said go right ahead.

        And the AIDS Quilt has “exploded” to 54 tons.

        Must be Ronald Reagan’s fault.

      • You’re busy ripping the Republicans on post after post, and for the reasons you yourself select.

        Just thought I’d help.

    • Rhode Island and New York refused to fight to free slaves, in fact when Lincoln called for troops from them, they tried to blow the trains up and resulted in Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus.

  21. Since I haven’t troubled myself to read all the other comments on this article, I will only say that the republican party of the 1800’s IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TODAY. And anybody who thinks they can equate the republican or the democratic parties of today to the same parties of the 1800’s is very ill informed. It is the republican party of today that has demonstrated its racism so blatantly. It is the republican party of today that wants to repeal the 14th amendment and thereby jeopardize or anull blacks’ citizenship. It is the republican party of today who places obstacles between black people and the ballot box with voter I. D. laws that prevent many from voting. To me, there’s nothing more pitiful today than a black person who calls himself a republican. Perhaps it’s the Stockhomn syndrome at work.

    • Even the republican party of the 1900’s is NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TODAY. The republican party has undergone some major devolutions that have put them at opposition with black America. It’s always the right wingers who support police brutality against black people. It was the right wingers who supported the continued flying of the confederate flag, claiming it was their heritage. Owning slaves is nobody’s heritage and that’s precisely what the confederate battle flag flown by the confederate troops during the civil war when they were fighting for their right to continue to own black people as slaves was all about. The republican party is the party of white supremacists so why would a black person be stupid enough to want to align themselves with it?

      • Go research which party the white supremacists belongs to. It certainly is not the Democratic party nor an Independent party. The republican party today is making no bones about their position regarding black people. They’re laying their cards on the table, in plain sight, but some black people refuse to look at those cards and would rather have a white republican tell them what t hose cards are saying.

      • People complain about me being brain washed when it’s you who do not know what you are talking about. The Confederate Flag (and there were many) started out as battle flags for the states who wanted to preserve slavery. The American Flag flew longer than those Flags when in came to Slavery. Leave the Flag argument out! You will not win here with it!

      • Yo Madeline…did you ever hear what Linden B. Johnson…a democrat… said about blacks? There was a concerted effort to have blacks “voting democrat for the next 200 years” only he didn’t use the word blacks in there. To this day, the Republicans STILL believe in the right of every human being to pursue his/her own happiness, to be FREE to work and fail and succeed. To this day, the DEMONrat party is the exact opposite. You WILL do what they say, you WILL vote how they want and you WILL NOT speak out against anything they have to say. Your party is the oppressor and just as you have come on here with your lies and misinformation to put down intelligent blacks who have to shoulder the weight of complete imbecile like you, your party is a hater of everything good. Why else is Resident Ovomit silent as police officers are being murdered and giving nuclear weapons, for God’s sake, to an enemy? And by the way, where the hell are all these fine a$$ black women conservatives?. I need a wife! WOOOHOOOO!!!! Holla at yo boy ladies. (NOT YOU MADCOW MADELINE…Nobody but a loser basement hippie wants another loser like you.)

    • If you weren’t such a brain dead fool I might bother to reply to your extremely tired excuse that the repubs and dems just decided one day to change their names…to just switch. Tell you what….let’s go ahead and switch back effective October 1, 2015. Go ahead please. I’ll wait for the announcement. The fact is that to this day, modern day Demon Rats are still using blacks as property for votes; they still enslave us all with welfare checks and condemn us to a miserable life where escape is damn near impossible. Escape….sound familiar!!!!???? Does that sound familiar to you Madeline??? So dont forget, effective Oct 1 you are now a Republican.

    • First of all your attacks on the Republican party are purely based on Speculation, and not facts. In fact you did not provide a single fact in your entire rebuttal. There is no talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, because the writers of the 14th Amendment gave birthright citizenship to blacks, and later gave them to the Indians, with the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.

      The 14th Amendment does not simply say that a non-citizen can enter the Country pregnant for the purpose of securing an immigration status for themselves, through their children.

      In fact there is nothing at all that actually gives this right, under constitutional law. We STILL have an Immigration system, the very same immigration system with it’s laws that Liberal Democrats ignore, in effort to secure the Latino vote.

      The mission is to end birthright citizenship, not promote racism. This wouldn’t happen if you Liberals didn’t correlate EVERY SOCIAL ISSUE WITH RACE. Knock it off already, does your race card not have an expiration date?

      Just because some Latinos have brown skin color, you want to make it a point that The Republican Party is somehow motivated by racism, instead of something lets say like… COMMON SENSE, and the ability to follow the law.

      It’s the same reason why you keep bringing race into gay rights, and race into women’s rights, even though they’re completely separate issues, which have no racial bias to them whatsoever.

      The OP of this article listed many factual details in regards to the history of Civil Rights, and the true offenders of Civil Rights, and you want to subject us to a Liberal opinion? Next time bring facts to the table if you want a real debate.

      • Thank you. As an Black American I am sick of white lily pad dim wit democrats telling me who to vote for and couching it with the other side is just racist so dont read, dont look, dont think, just keep voting for uncle cracker. They and black leaders who are along for the money game are going to go to hell. As a wise black man put it, ” The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals expansion of the welfare state” Thomas Sowell. Notice how liberals love an promote every negative aspect of our culture. Heres an old poem for ya, describes the dems perfectly: Let us celebrate the poor. Let us hawk them door to door, There’s a market for their pain,votes and glory and money to gain, let us celebrate the poor, their ills their sins their faulty diction. Flavor our songs and spice our fiction. Their hopes and struggles and agonies get us grants and consulting fees. Celebrate thugs and clowns give their ignorance all renown. Celebrate what holds them down. IN our academic gowns let us celebrate the poor.

        Notice under racist demorats the black family is destroyed, our education is low, our outcomes are not so great and abortion is off the chart. For the first time in history there are more aborted blacks in NY then being born. Thanks Sanger..hope hells comfy for you and hitler.

      • I don’t see how getting an ID is a problem, there is nothing in today’s society you can get with out one. I served 20 years for the Military and I had 3 IDs just to work.

    • The Republican party of today can directly link it’s roots to the very beginning in 1854 which rose to defeat the Democrats and it’s pro-slavery movement. The Democrat Party of today can also directly trace it’s roots back to this time as well. The Democrat party had started some years prior to this. Prior to these 2 parties becoming what they are today there was a lot of switching party names, this was a time when our Government was still very new and was working out what to become, some opposed one thing others opposed another, some believed in the constitution and some did not.
      Eventually two parties emerged, Democrats where first and they clearly where in support of keeping slavery and this is what prompted the Republican party to form in 1854.
      These are the exact two parties that we currently have today, I don’t know what the hell history you are reading but you are very wrong.
      If the Democrats where so hell bent on proving they are not the same Democrats of these days they where backing racism then why wouldn’t they change the name of the party or simply leave the party to form a new one?
      They don’t change the name because they are the same party bottom line and people like you are either very ignorant, deceived or simply covering up what Democrats are responsible for, “racism”!
      You can’t have a past of very serious racism then all the sudden say we are not that same party of the past when you can in fact directly link todays Democrats to 1854 Democrats, and I mean directly no change of party name no denouncing of the old party likely not even an apology.
      This is like the KKK (which was created by Democrats) all the sudden trying to become politically correct and saying we are not racist, we are not the same KKK of the past we are different yet they keep the name and have the same face, who would actually believe this? I guess someone like you would apparently.
      This is the biggest wool pulled over Americans I have ever seen, it’s scary how our politicians can actually be this deceptive and twist things into what it is not, amazing!
      America really better wake up or we will lose our country for good and these deceptive blood sucken evil bastards will win as they have been far to long.
      Do not listen to this crap people like this Madeline Brashear is spewing out, it is false garbage and she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about, all any half witted person (which apparently she is not even that) needs to do is a little research on Party history and it is very clear just as this wonderful Lady Kuuleme Stephens has shown here.

    • Very well said, Madeline Brashear, thank you.
      It’s nothing short of propaganda and blatant lies; motivated by a desperation to claim something….. anything…. as “proof” Republicans were/are not racists and bigots.
      Even more offensive? The claim they were instead molded from the very empathy, the belief in equal rights for all, and the awareness of the true brutality of slavery; that were a large part of what defined President Lincoln…..and were/are certainly not so much qualities of the Republicans since the Civil Rights Act was introduced and passed.
      It’s not the name, it’s the ideology.

    • Here s the simplest way to end this. You all can deny the facts as your cognitive dissonance dictates you must to save face and I will let you. just as you did with nicotine in tobacco, leaded gasoline, coal mining, whale oil, horses, asbestos, leaded paint, uranium, seat belts in the air bags, and now with climate change deny that it’s a problem . Then after many years of the changes occurring against your will you grow to accept it admit it when the evidence is thrusting your face and you can no longer play the game you’re playing now then as you always do you claim you knew it all along and you supported it then after enough time has passed you will claim it was your idea all along

      http://www.space.com/25579-cosmos-recap-earth-age-lead-poisoning.html

      https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_cosmos_neil_degrassetyson_said_some_historians/
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-a-doctor-discovered-us-walls-were-poisonous/
      http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/cosmos-neil-tyson-lead-industry-science-denial

      Here’s a fun fact no one can deny while we sit here and talk about the dynamic changes that often occur in political parties versus the static state of philosophies. Political parties will go back and forth in the nature of its members forever. They will change and they may even disappear, as many have . But you know what will not change? The traits of conservatives and of liberals / progressives. I am 100% certain that when the liberals are having these same educational debates with the conservatives of the year 2075, over whether to let AI cybernetic organisms vote or to no longer enslave those that have achieved consciousnesses as robotic tools for our convenience. These words will be mind googled, and our descendants will rad our fun discussion.; Most likely neither party will exist, if they do, they certAinly will have gone through changes. Conservatives will claim they were for immigration, education,eliminating incarceration, were against oil wars, and that they couldn’t convince those scientists and liberals, that climate change was real, they were environmental champions even. They insisted that homosexualsm and lesbians be allowed to get a marriage license….because of a similar shift in the future.

      So while all the conservative here are using special pleading for their weak straw man in that they only want to discuss the nature of Democrats vs Republicans in the 18 hundreds in order to take credit for what has become the norm in society, thanks to liberals and progressive. That’s a cool story bros, but that that only works with special pleading; well you’re not special snowflakes so I will be ignoring that request that we focus on only the Republicans and Democrats so you may imply that conservative or somehow despite Webster’s dictionary and Oxford Dictionary advocates for change .

      You may not build the strawman today

      I don’t care if you claim every Democrat from that time was a member of the KKK . So what ? the goal of this intellectual dishonesty is to claim that all of that progress what do to the far right wing conservatives of today’s Republican Party . But to do that gives you a paradox in that you must also claim that the Republican Party is a party of liberals and progressives . That feeling you feel right now is called cognitive dissonance . It will make you say something really stupid in order to appear to use logic and reason to twist this into a way in which that could not be true .

      The unfortunate corner you paint yourself into is that where your scenario to be true you would be on the other side of the Republican Party stands in matters of immigration, education funding, healthcare, homosexual marriage and income equality and normality. Were you on that side of those issues, then you would be on the correct side. Your argument would scale, and you would be on the left. You will be advocating changing the status quo.

      So to you new radicals and rebels who despise the statists, I say “Welcome, Comrades!”

      Unfortunately what we do know for a fact is that while not all conservative were members of the KKK; all KKK members were conservative All Redcoats feared the changes without the King of England, and all confederates feared working for living.Some are so conservative, that even in the face of the evidence,their fear of having devoted their lives to that of a lie and folly. Their conscious mind will prevent them from having to admit, something as simple as Trickle Down Economics never worked, and caused severe harm and set back to the nation,. Much less to admit to the genocides of african Americans or Native Americans. Bring those things up, and they will say “I am not paying reparations from stuff my great great grandfathers did.Besides, they genuinely need that money to give to the Jews, because of their smaller holocaust, we had nothing to do with. Benghazi, email servers, prayer in schools, abortion and ten commandments because (insert more more non sequiturs here, because the cognitive dissonance is in full protect mode now) of his fake birth certificate!

      Organizations are dynamic and will change or disappear as 20 or so parties have done. They will change they may even disappear as many have . But you know what will not change? The traits of conservatives and liberals / progressives.

      Grow your hair out, read Zinn, Chomsky and Marx and we can all go blow up, a pipeline, burn down a clear cutting saw mill in the Amazon, or sink a whaling “research Japanese vessel in the Antarctic.

      Conservatives. Always out of style, always on the wrong side of history.

      http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/study-are-liberals-smarter-than—conservatives

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

      • Your argument makes no sense at all. In your view opposition to change (conservative) is always wrong, yet on many issues you yourself clearly oppose change. You can’t see that you are liberal and conservative both, as the need arises (cognitive dissonance), and you amazingly criticize others for doing what you do yourself if they disagree with your current view.

        Most of the rest of us are, or should be, well aware that Republicans were liberal/progressive in the war against slavery. Then they became conservative in the fight against the murder of unborn children. Now that their murder is legal, Republicans are again the liberal/progressives as they work to overturn legalized abortion.

        What you fail to recognize is that political labels only reflect the goals of a current position, and those labels don’t change overnight.

        What has not changed at all in America is the fact that the Democratic Party continues to embrace wrong as its ideal, whether conservative OR liberal/progressive.

        “My body!”

        “My property!”

        Dred Scott and/or Baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown.

        In both cases someone is allowed to dominate someone else, either by enslaving them or by murdering them in the womb. And in both cases it is the Democratic Party that is on the side of wrong, be it conservative today or liberal/progressive tomorrow.

      • Your argument that the two parties have switched philosophically is an interesting one, however I would like to see some documentation. You know, some facts? Can you show the verifiable documentation that the Democrats and Republicans switched political philosophies and principals? Personally I have never seen it. Perhaps you can show it to me, as I would be very interested. And I’m not so sure that one can apply today’s definition of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ to yesterdays values. Just as you seem to imply in your argument that Republican and Democrat are just labels, so are ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. What may have been viewed as liberal is viewed as conservative depending upon the bias of the one applying the label. I am old enough to remember the election of JFK. I marched as a young child in civil rights demonstrations with my family. My white mother was married to a black man in the early sixties when it was still illegal in many states and dangerous in any state. Today, my children and grandchildren are black. This one thing I know for certain. The philosophical basis for civil rights is Christianity. It was the Christian Pastors and leaders, based upon Biblical principals, that organized and fought for Civil rights, women’s rights, environmental protection, etc. Those Biblical principals have not changed. When all the world was 80% illiterate, and women were regarded as property of men not much better than a slave, ancient Israel was 80% literate, women enjoyed far greater freedom and respect than any of their counterparts in any other nation. Everywhere the Bible has gone, we find slavery abolished, women liberated, and society elevated. Everywhere the Bible has been banned, we find just the opposite. I am not moved by labels, political or otherwise. I look at end results. For example: communities that are represented by Democrats; How well are they doing, versus communities represented by Republicans? Political speeches mean nothing. What is the candidates voting record? And, let me actually read the bill voted on along with the riders attached to the bill. By actually reading the legislation and the voting records, I have found my own mind radically changed from the perspective I had gathered from the media. I found that the media radically lies. Never, ever, believe the media.

    • What have the Democrats done as of late for Civil Rights ?, nothing. Today a Black person has nothing to look forward to if he lives in a housing project except live as a slave off the Government for his vote.. I would think Baltimore, Saint Louis, and Detroit would have opened your eyes up to what Democrats really feel about Blacks.

    • THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS, MADELINE! I was shaking my head so hard, I thought it would fall right off! The Republican and Democrat names have forever been used, over and over, throughout USA’s history of government, and have constantly switched meanings and ideas, values and presidents. The “Republican” name of Abraham Lincoln’s party has nothing in common with the modern Republican party, despite the name!! I am so angry and disappointed that many black, or poor, Americans are brainwashed or misinformed into believing the Republic Party is on their side! WOW! Besides, voters should focus on what their party’s potential presidential candidate stands for at present, not what their party has accomplished in the past. Although two presidents may come from the same party, their ideas could be completely different…

      • I agree, without the help of Democrats…African-Americans would be nothing. Utterly helpless and unable to accomplish anything but murder, pimping, whoring, and selling drugs…so the Democrats would have us believe. What a tremendous blessing welfare is for the lazy (black or white). And how generous of Democrats to monopolize Black (and White) children’s study time by forcing them to ride a school bus all over town for hours every school day.

        And let’s not forget how nice it is of the Democrats to justify Black violence ( Black on Black, Black on White, etc.) as being the inevitable consequence of the Democrats’ own…I mean Republican…racism.

        And thanks to the American Democratic Party for being so generous with the taxpayers’ money and using it to buy the votes of those the Republicans won’t let them enslave.

        Just being a Liberal Progressive for a Day.

  22. The party name is of little concern. The obvious point is that Conservatives have always been on the wrong-side of history whether they were part of the Democratic Party back then, or the Republican Party now. So as long as Republicans align themselves with the ugly history of the Conservative movement, then the Republican *party* will be guilty by association with Conservative history. The same history that tried (and failed) to seceed from the union over the right to enslave other HUMANS…the same history that opposed women rights, civil rights, voting rights, and more…

    • You leave out the fact that democrats weren’t actually ever conservatives (see cooper union address 1860) and unfortunately for democrats they aren’t actually liberal either, even though they do call themselves that, even the Grandfather Woodrow Wilson of modern liberals, may have had a few Liberal traits, but the modern Liberal is primarily Progressive but mixed with Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist and many other collectivist ideologies, the closest to Classical Liberalism would be Conservative and Libertarian, Democrats are supremacist bigoted fascist no matter what they label themselves. Democrats to this day do not believe in equal rights, different rights maybe, but not equal, besides that separating everyone into ethnocentric groups and then collectivism of those groups surely isn’t individual rights, which is what is granted by our Constitution, the only Liberal thing about democrats, their Liberal interpretation of the constitution, which was explained by Lincoln in 1860. I suggest a little reading might enlighten your perception of exactly what Conservatism is, it’s definitely not what Democrats say it it in their poor attempt to redirect blame away from their racist past present and future.

      • Thank you Mr. Pecaro. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this: “The Republicans and Democrats from that time to now have changed sides,” or that, “The Democrats of old were the conservatives who wanted the blacks to have equal rights.”

      • Basically this, Conservatives are pro-civil liberty for the individual no matter what race, Liberals believe in special rights for whatever they decide is special at the moment.. Liberals own most of the banks, and money that is out there so this makes it easy for them to revise history. As a Conservative I also see one other difference between liberals and Conservatives, Liberals worship, eat, sleep and breath Politics, Conservatives just want government to leave us alone.

    • If it makes a difference, which I’m sure it won’t because those who believe the party switch fallacy are committed to it.

      My grandfather, a Ku Klux Klan member, was a Democrat all the way up until his death in the 1990’s, his children—Democrats, and yes, they voted for Barack Obama. To put it blunt, the primary targets of the KKK were Republicans, both black and white, which most blacks were Republicans during the KKK’s reign of terror, now that Democrats have 95% of the black vote, the KKK has all but disappeared, think about that.

      Oh, and David Duke—the klansman, ran for president in 1988 as a Democrat–he clearly knew the history of his party. Now he threatens to call out Republicans who are in the KKK and we Republicans want him to so we know who to disassociate from our party, which, to me, if someone flies the Democrats flag (rebel flag) and considers their self a Republican, that’s enough for me to show them the history and tell them they’re flying a flag created by a Democrat from Ohio so it’s not even a “southern thing” and it’s most certainly not a Republican thing as it was flown over the death of thousands of Republicans during and since the Civil War.

      These labels “conservative” and “liberal” are misleading, modern “liberals” merely interpret the Constitution (and the bible) liberally, modern “conservatives” are conservative of the liberalism brought forth by the founding fathers, economic and social freedom, but rule by law, for instance, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      Just as Democrats did with slavery, they said that slaves were not persons under the law, therefore they had no rights, they say the same about unborn children today, they are not persons under the law, therefore they have no rights… That should be sufficient evidence that the parties didn’t switch, but because those Democrats used “states rights” as a reason for justification for slavery and modern Republicans want to leave social issues up to the states, they still believe the parties switched, it just gives meaning to the quote “it’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.”

      Also, do note that Democrats pandered to Christians with slavery through the bible mentioning slavery and they pander to Christians today as well about abortion because there’s a “recipe for abortion” in the bible.

      Democrats do have an agenda to move towards socialism or a “social democracy” as they call it, but it involves moving to the left, and up on the political compass, which if you look at the British owned website http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 and see where Adolf Hitler is placed on the political compass, then look at where Democrats and Republicans are on the political compass at http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 and http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 you’ll see that the Democrats “social democracy” will give the government more power and will move us up and to the left, even closer to where Adolf Hitler is, so that’s something to think about as well.

      I am awaiting their positioning of Bernie Sanders, I have a feeling it will be so close to Adolf Hitler’s that it is enough to make people realize that this is not where we want to go. If you look at Barack Obama’s position in 2008 and 2012, you’ll see he has moved to the right, that may be the tell-tale reason the economy has made any improvements since he took office.

    • As soon as one Republican supporter can name just one..and I mean “JUST ONE” teaching of Jesus Christ supported by the Republican platform…i’ll switch and become Republican………..oh…and after you search for days…weeks..and YEARS to try to find that 1 teaching of Jesus christ…and you cant find it…you must finally realize how bad you’ve been brain washed for your entire life and actually change the way you think And care about other human being regardless of their color, religion, and social status. (Just like Jesus would do)

      • Separation of Church and state. Americas laws are about a constitution not a religion. Personal faith is personal and that is freedom of religion. No party should ever be based upon any religion this could spell serious trouble. That is why these founders realized we needed a clause of separation of church and state. Not God and state just religion. Both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence have some kind of reference to a Creator or God just not a particular religion even though many of them may of been Christians.

      • Hey Mike, I’m a theologian. Would you mind enlightening me on what you believe the “teachings of Jesus Christ” were? And what in the Democrat platform supports or agrees with any of the ‘teachings of Jesus Christ”? And please do quote the Bible, and any supporting First Century Christian literature, or verifiable historical data to support your position? I suspect that you have neither read the Bible or the GOP platform since some, not all, of the DNC platform violently opposes the “teachings of Jesus Christ”, such as abortion (Thou shall do no murder… do unto others…), marriage (God created them male and female…). So, I’m trying to figure out where you are coming from, left field maybe? Here is a link to the GOP Platform: https://www.gop.com/platform/

    • Well said. I recently put together this list of all the issues on which conservatives (regardless of party name) were on the wrong side of history. Are there any others?

      -Ending slavery
      -Women’s right to vote
      -Minimum wage, 8 hour work day, child labor laws
      -Medicare
      -Social Security
      -Ending racial segregation
      -Black’s right to vote
      -Civil Rights Act
      -Legalizing interracial marriage
      -LGBT rights
      -Taking down Confederate flag

  23. Pingback: 1st Party Vs 3rd Party Insurance | Great ABC Home Insurance

  24. Gun control is racist by nature. it is support by democrats during slavery, to disarm blacks / minorities and still supported by democrats today.. That saying of democrats switching platforms is a myth debunked right there.. They only;y switched masks

  25. This is the dumbest article ever.
    Anyone that went to fucking highschool should know that in the 1800s the republicans were founded by very liberal progressives. as a matter of fact that is where the term progressive started to be used. the parties did a complete paradigm flip starting after the war and ending when the Dixiecrats left their party and join the bigots in the republican party in the 60s

    The question should be who fought to end slavery. and the answer would not be conservatives.
    please go back to school or at least take a polisci class.
    I wrote a term paper 30 years ago on this very subject.

    • You’re the dumbass if you believe what you wrote. Do some homework before you spout a bunch of crap, dumbass.
      Next time, try citing a few facts like this person did, rather than just calling names, dumbass. Fred – you’re an idiot. If you really wrote a term paper, it would have had a failing grade. You are too stupid to write anything.

    • you dont say… so the article is dumb? what a way to describe an article not written by yourseld. Post your article so we can criticize it too. Guess the truth hurts and well written.

    • Yes. They operate by bullet point because a full telling of the story would expose that this “history” is extremely selective and purposely designed to obfuscate the history of the modern Republican Party. Thus, they mention that Harry Truman was once a member of the KKK while failing to mention that he signed the executive order ending the segregation of the US armed forces in 1948, or how Nixon’s Southern strategy was an overt appeal to racists in the South to abandon the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party.

      • First of all, there was no Southern Strategy.

        Everyone keeps using this as an excuse to make the claim that the parties magically switched sides. Not only is this argument stupid, but it’s also painfully redundant.

        Want to know why there was no Southern Strategy? Because not even Nixon himself confirmed this, and it was popularized by a Political commentator, not an actual credible politician.

        If the parties switched sides then surely you would have a date and time, when this unusual occurrence took place right? Oh and did you know after the 1964 CRA that only ONE Democrat switched to the GOP?

        Another thing, why would a party that was dedicated to Civil Rights, decide to simply become a bunch of racists over night? Does that make any sense to you?

        Not all Southern White people are racists, but if you believe in the Southern Strategy lie, then you are saying that all Southern Whites are racists.

        The myth that also follows the Southern Strategy is that the Republican Party also adopted the Jim Crow laws of the Democrats. Not only is this not a fact, it’s a flat out lie. Not a single law has been put into legislation by Republicans for the purpose of oppressing the black race.

        No, instead you Liberals want to call Republican’s racists because they are inherently anti-socialist, and they don’t agree to ideological entitlement programs, that Liberals weaponize as an excuse to make the claim that Republican’s don’t want to support these programs because they HATE black people. Completely stupid, unsubstantiated arguments with absolutely no factual foundation.

        It’s just a hate-mongering philosophy to get people motivated into having a seething hatred for those who oppose their Socialist big Government. It’s sad to see so many people get wrapped up in all of this stupidity.

    • Fred,

      Take your advice, and better yet, get some College Level History and you will see that it is very clear, in our History that Republicans fought to end Slavery while the Democrats wanted, not only to maintain it but expanded to the West. Is that simple truth that shows what the reality of Democrats is ALL ABOUT

    • Read Lincolns Cooper Union Address given 1860 the entire intent and justification is Conservative, he also goes on explaining to the Democrats how their claims of conservation are false and not conservative, believing democrat lies just because they’ve told the story over and over doesn’t make what they claim to be true, they have always been devious, why would anyone believe them so easily without question in the first place.. Funny though..

      • Wow. You actually believe that Lincoln would be a Republican today?

        The GOP switched sides in the 1880s, when the plutocracy realized they needed political power or they were going to get voted out of existence. It hasn’t been the party of Lincoln since. Nor is it “conservative”. It’s atavistic.In its heart it doesn’t seek to return to the revolution, but beyond it. Its candidates are puppet actors in democracy, their goals are to support the de facto aristocracy created by concentrating wealth.

        Modern Republicans are Tories.

    • Yea and you wrote it wrong.
      History is history no matter how much ignorant fools as yourself try to twist it to what you want it to be.
      If Democrats are not the same Democrats then why are they still Democrats? Why didn’t they leave the party and begin a new one? Because they are the same party you numb nut!
      Republican party didn’t change their name because they have no reason to, they have a very proud past, a very clean record unlike Democrats. You can not change the past of Democrats it is what it is, write all the damn term papers you want it does not change the past of the Democrat party. If it was what you try to say it was then the Democrat party would of dissolved and a new party would of emerge to fight off the so called now racist Republicans. So what you are saying is the old Republican party was taking over by the old Democrat party and the old Republicans went to the Democrat side? Why in the hell would anyone go to a party that was historically behind the worst racism in our nations history after being part of the very party that fought off this racism, does that make any kind of logical sense?? Absolutely none! If this did happen then any logical sensible group of people (old Republicans as you say) would not fall to the enemy racist party they just fought off and won. They’d of fought off any take over of the party or simply began a new party much like the founders where doing back in 1790 – 1854 not join the very party they have opposed from the beginning, give me a break. I am stunned people buy into this complete nonsense, absolute fabricated nonsense.

  26. Pingback: THE RACIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY FINALLY EXPOSED | Geri Ungurean

  27. Pingback: The Confederate Flag: Legacy of the Democrats « OK Politechs

  28. Pingback: The Democrats Gave Us Racism | Cry and Howl

  29. Pingback: Obama making bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods - Political Wrinkles

  30. Please do not harp on the Democrats! The arguments given for both sides are most likely the reverse, when it comes to the recent police shootings of African-Americans and how conservatives are biased against African-Americans citing “the facts” as their excuse.

      • Clearly you did not read the article linked by AGA. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
        The “facts” presented by Mr. Stephens ignore regional dynamics and the shift of the Southern states. The vote count of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shows that 90% of the Democrats from “Union” states voted for the bill, while only 8% from Confederate states voted yes. Clearly the argument that the Democratic party was against the bill is false. Compare these numbers to the Republican party where 85% of the former Union voted in support, while not 1 Republican representative of the Union voted yes.

        You can site pre-Civil Rights numbers all day long and many people will be fooled, but there is little question that the Republican party of the 19th and early 20 centuries is nothing like the party of today.

      • No YOU ARE the idiot. the parties flipped ideologies over 100 years. The party of lincoln housed the most progressives in the time.

        If you have ever had any polisci classes please go kick the teacher’s ass for being a dick.
        This country is trying to alter history now. I wrote of term paper on this very subject 30 years ago.

        THE PARTIES FLIPPED FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST!

      • To Fred,

        Fred, do you have any formal education, have you read advanced History books, at least college level History? The parties never NEVER FLIPPED.

        Fact, Democrats jumped off the party because the party started to provide assistance to Blacks, not because they wanted to help them, they wanted their vote, so some of the ones that jumped joined the Republican party,but not in the amounts that would make the party flip…. your statement is plain IGNORANT!!!!

    • The Democrats [1st white supremacy group] were always for racial divide. First it was KKK now it’s Islam Laraza, and Black panthers. that’s the only switch they did. They were for gun control back then and still at it today. Liberals today were like the conservatives back then, attacking the constitution.. Same terrorists different masks..

    • Everything incited by rich white Liberals, liars and wolves in sheep’s clothing, when you fail to use logic you are left to follow, liberal Unions = mostly liberal cops. besides that, shootings have been going on forever and three times as many whites are killed as blacks ( left that fact out for your illusion) that’s the problem with Conspiracy theories

  31. Reblogged this on YourDaddy's Politics and commented:
    It is what the left is hiding from, running from and forever lying about.
    The democrats have never stood for civil rights. They let the Right do the job of actually recognizing civil rights and then THEY take credit for it.

    • The Democrats had those Southern Democrats in the party, and they were filthy racist conservatives. I am sure you know the type. They all moved to the Republican Party after they were butthurt over the Civil Rights Act. You mad about being busted using the logical fallacies of Weasel Wording and Euphemism?

      History is a bitch to conservatives, as they will always try and prevent change, thus always be on the wrong side of history.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

      • Really? You are actually citing Wikipedia…. hahahahaha!!!!! That shows the level of education that you have. Not even college students are encourage to use it as a fact finding source…… Stacy, read real History, invest in your own education so when you write something, let it be the truth, not Wikipedia truth hahahaha You are such a fool…. and an ignorant fool to that… hahahahaha!!!

      • Manny, why poison the well? The source isn’t the issue, its the information that is contained in the source. Do you have a problem with the information?

      • So your claim is the Republican party is Liberal and progressive and advocates change, while the Democrats now fight to keep the status quo and traditional methods? That is where your weasel wording falls apart bro.

        Leave the chess clubs they belonged too out of this, since we ruined out Republic by going to sit tier two party shroud to hide the Oligarchy, it is the philosophies or whether you are a conservative, or liberal and progressive on the decisions you make by which future generations will judge you. Your shell game isn’t working.

        I am not saying all Republicans are racist.

        I am saying all racists are conservative.

        Speaking of which, how many of you conservatives got a divorce, since the Homogay marriag became law and suddenly you realized the dicks looked delicious from within your closet? I myselff neverf understood the fuss, as dicks do not temp me, so I failed to see how they would ruin my boobie relationships. Those that stayed, were most likely pieces of conservatrash that couldn’t get elected with being an incumbent on such a switch, but I don’t give a shit about that.

        Racists are conservative. Liberals are not. We did have a mix of cons and libs in both parties before the evangelical fundie nutters went all meth and gay hooker…I mean Moral Majority on us.

  32. Bill Hedlund stated:
    “First of all…for the umpteenth time…the only Democratic senator who voted against the 1964 CRA and then switched parties was Strom Thurmond. He wanted to support Goldwater’s candidacy against LBJ, one of the few Democrats who supported the CRA and only because he had the political vision to recognize that if he couldn’t have slaves then he might as well have the slaves’ votes. But Goldwater, unlike the claims of Democrats, opposed the CRA on entirely non-racial grounds. His concern was that the CRA imposed unconstitutional requirements on employers. That was the only concern any Republican had with the CRA.”

    This is the same argument in favor of discriminating against homesexuals/lesbians desrcribed as “The Religious Freedom Acts”. Unconstitutional limits on the practice of religions by corporations.

    The intellectual dishonesty by using he false premise that Republicans have always been conservative, and Democrats have always been liberal and the willful ignorance of the existence and movements of the Southern Democrats before and after the CRA makes this thread painful to read.

    I want to clarify and cut through those two blaring errors of thought.

    First definitions by Webster’s:

    Conservative: Believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism. Not liking or accepting changes or new ideas

    Liberal: Believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism. Not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted.

    The status quo of the US back the was slavery, and it was well entrenched and established. Therefore change would be required. Conservatives, liberals and centrists were in both political parties back then (there were other parties as well). But conservatives dominated the Democratic Party, and the Republicans were new and Republican and Jeffersonian Liberalism in views, rather than Jacksonian Democratic. Jeffersonians were deeply committed to Republicanism in the United States, which meant opposition to aristocracy of any form, opposition to corruption, insistence on virtue, and equal rights for all citizens, with a priority for the “yeoman farmer”, “planters” and the “plain folk” (It is the opposite of that now, the party of middle class, temporarily embarrassed billionaires and the 1%). They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers and manufacturers, were on the watch for supporters of the dreaded British system of government. Today, Now, it is the Democrats that embrace those qualities and the Republicans the oppose them because of the changes in party ideals.

    To end slavery would have required change. The status quo was slavery. Therefore abolitionism and ending slavery by making black men and women equal required change. Liberals like change. Conservatives fear change by definition.

    So then if you are a denier that conservatives left the Democratic party in a wave of Southern Democrats for the Republican party over the years and enmass during the CRA then fine fine, but it is a historical fact; were you to debate it was not in a court of law, you would lose due to overwhelming evidence. We can all agree that while not all supporters of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, inter-racial marriage, gentrification, who oppose equal rights and affirmative action are/were Republican; All those that were supporters of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, inter-racial marriage, gentrification, who oppose equal rights and affirmative action are/were conservative.

    Want more bad news? Liberals wanted to leave British rule. Conservatives did not want war (change) and fought as Tories and Redcoats for King and country.

    You cannot change the meaning of words, use euphemism or weasel wording in classic Orwellian Doublespeak to change history when conservative decisions put you on the wrong side of it. Conservatives always worship the radical, hundreds of years after their death. The Revolution, Slavery, Women’s Rights, Civil Rights Act, Labor Unions ect,Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history. Political Parties come and go, defining idealistic behavior rarely does.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

    • Anyone who uses Wiki pedia as a reference is in reality a moron since they are written by anyone. If we used Wiki as a reference in my Masters program they were disallowed and thrown out. Great source!

      • That would be the fallacy of naming the speaker. And since you cannot refute one single fact in either Wikipedia article, you resort to “its Wikipedia.” I’ll grant you that Wikipedia should not be a source of graduate level knowledge. But you appear to be in need of some of the most elementary knowledge about the history of the modern Republican Party. Here is a wiki about Nixon’s Southern strategy which shows how the modern Republican Party forged its modern electoral bloc out of a foundation of appeal to disaffected Dixiecrats. Facts are inconvenient things! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

      • Your fallacies are failure to state (a counter with evidence) and of course, the obvious “poisoning the well.”

        That little ploy of slaughtering The Encyclopedia Britanica, by proxy of insulting Wiki, is poor form. I listed those for your own convenience, ass they are a aggregator of the most accurate and relevant sources on each topic. Everyone knows this, why don’t you?

        Had this been a academic paper, it would have obviously had the correct format, and I would obviously achieve a higher grade than you, due to me being correct, and not using invalid arguments.

        I will get those links for you now, because that is one of the many little things, that makes me, so much better than people like you.

        I am sorry for my tardy reply, I just assumed that after I explained the facts, it was over.

        I checked the notification box in case you want me to correct your wrongness or read another fallacious argument attempt.

        Here you go, happy busy work there poisoner of the water wells.:

        William S. Dietrich (2008). In the Shadow of the Rising Sun: The Political Roots of American Economic Decline. Penn State Press. p. 165.
        Jeff Taylor, Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy (2006)
        Michael Kazin, et al. eds. The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History (2011) p 149
        James J. Horn, Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf, eds. The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic (2002)
        Noble E. Cunningham Jr. The Jeffersonian Republicans in Power: Party Operations, 1801-1809 (1963)
        See Andrew W. Robertson, “Afterword: Reconceptualizing Jeffersonian Democracy,” Journal of the Early Republic (2013) 33#2 pp 317-334 on recent voting studies.
        Benjamin F. Wright, “The Philosopher of Jeffersonian Democracy,” American Political Science Review Vol. 22, No. 4 (Nov., 1928), pp. 870-892 in JSTOR
        David A. Carson, “That Ground Called Quiddism: John Randolph’s War with the Jefferson Administration,” Journal of American Studies, (1986) 20-#1 pp 71-92
        H. Lee Cheek Jr. Calhoun and Popular Rule: The Political Theory of the Disquisition and Discourse (2001) p10; see also pp 38, 40.
        Editorial, The Jeffersonian 1838 vol 1 p 287
        Leonard D. White, The Jeffersonians: A study in administrative history 1801-1829 (1951) pp 214, 248-49
        Fitzgerald, Michael S. (1996). “Rejecting Calhoun’s Expansible Army Plan: the Army Reduction Act of 1821”. War in History 3 (2): 161–185. doi:10.1177/096834459600300202.
        Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1978) pp 79–90
        Noble E. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian party to 1801: a study of the formation of a party organization (1952)
        Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American democracy (2006) p 138-39
        Jeffrey L. Pasley, “‘A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics’: John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning,” Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp. 531-569 in JSTOR
        Elkins and McKitrick. (1995) ch 5; Wallace Hettle, The Peculiar Democracy: Southern Democrats in Peace and Civil War (2001) p. 15
        Banning (1978) pp 105–15
        Philip Hamburger, Separation of church and state (2002)
        Robert Allen Rutland; The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776–1791(1955)
        Banning (1978) pp 264–66
        Banning (1978) pp 255-66-3
        Jefferson letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789 | http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm
        Roy J. Honeywell, “A Note on the Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson,” History of Education Quarterly, Winter 1969, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp 64-72 in JSTOR
        R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (2001)
        Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson (1990).
        Lawrence S. Kaplan, Entangling alliances with none: American foreign policy in the age of Jefferson (1987)
        Todd Estes, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture (2006)
        Michael Hardt, “Jefferson and Democracy,” American Quarterly 59.1 (2007) 41-78, quote on p 63
        Merrill D. Peterson, “Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution,” Tocqueville Review — La Revue Tocqueville, Jan 1987, Vol. 9, pp 15-25
        Banning (1978) pp 292–3
        Noble Eballs. Cunningham, Jr., “Who Were the Quids?” in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 50, No. 2 (Sep., 1963), pp. 252-263 in JSTOR
        Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (1966).
        Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (1974)
        The Lewis & Clark, Fort Mandan Foundation. “Show 1048 – Redistribution.” The Thomas Jefferson Hour. Prairie Public Radio: 27 October 2013. Web. 30 October 2013.
        Junius P. Rodriguez, The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia (2002) p 106, 253-54
        White, Richard (1991). “It’s your misfortune and none of my own” : a new history of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-8061-2366-4.
        Thomas Jefferson (1900). John P. Foley, ed. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection Of The Views Of Thomas Jefferson Classified And Arranged In Alphabetical Order Under Nine Thousand Titles Relating To Government, Politics, Law, Education, Political Economy, Finance, Science, Art, Literature, Religious Freedom, Morals, Etc. Funk & Wagnalls company. p. 323. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
        Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson’s People, p. 27
        Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson’s People, p. 26
        Jefferson, “The Jeffersonian cyclopedia.”
        “These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich …. The Rich alone use imported article, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man … pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing.”
        ^ Jump up to: a b c Ketcham, 259
        ^ Jump up to: a b Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson’s People, pp. 36–38
        Padraig Riley, Northern Republicans and southern slavery: Democracy in the age of Jefferson, 1800-1819 (2007) p 161
        Robert M. Johnstone, Jefferson and the Presidency: leadership in the young Republic (1978) p 44
        Staaloff, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, p. 285–292
        Bernard Bailyn, To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders (2004) p. 38
        Bailyn, p. 45
        Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson’s People, p. 8
        Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time (1952) p. 7
        Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2006) p 136
        Sean Wilentz, “Book Reviews,” Journal of American History Sept. 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476.
        Further reading[edit]
        Banning, Lance. The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1978)
        Banning, Lance. “Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic,” William and Mary Quarterly (1986) 43#1 pp. 3-19 in JSTOR
        Beard, Charles A. “Some Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy.” American Historical Review 19#2 (1914): 282-298; Summary of this famous book; in JSTOR
        Brown; Stuart Gerry. The First Republicans: Political Philosophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison (1954) online
        Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric L. McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (1995), the standard political history of the 1790s
        Hendrickson, David C. and Robert W. Tucker. Empire of Liberty: the statecraft of Thomas Jefferson (1990); His foreign policy
        Jefferson, Thomas. “The Jeffersonian cyclopedia: a …”. topical compendium of Jefferson’s statements and quotes
        Ketcham, Ralph. “Jefferson, Thomas.” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
        Parrington, Vernon. Main Currents in American Thought (1927) v 2 online
        Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (1960)
        Robinson, William A. Jeffersonian democracy in New England (Yale U.P. 1916) online
        Taylor, Jeff. Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy (2006)
        Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2005)
        Wilentz, Sean. “Jeffersonian democracy and the origins of political antislavery in the United States: The Missouri crisis revisited.” Journal of the Historical Society 4#3 (2004): 375-401.
        Wiltse, Charles Maurice. The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy (1935)
        Wiltse, Charles M. “Jeffersonian Democracy: a Dual Tradition.” American Political Science Review (1934) 28#05 pp: 838-851. in JSTOR
        Wright, Benjamin F. “The Philosopher of Jeffersonian Democracy.” American Political Science Review 22#4 (1928): 870-892. in JSTOR
        Barone, Michael, and others. The Almanac of American Politics 1976: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts (1975-2013); new edition every 2 years; detailed political profile of every governor and member of Congress, as well as state and district politics
        Bullock III, Charles S. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Southern Politics (2012)
        Key, V. O. Southern Politics in State and Nation (1951), famous classic
        Rae, Nicol C. Southern Democrats (Oxford University Press, 1994)
        Richter, William L. Historical Dictionary of the Old South (2005)
        Shafer, Byron E. The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (2006) excerpt and text search
        Twyman, Robert W. and David C. Roller, eds. Encyclopedia of Southern History LSU Press (1979).
        Woodard, J. David. The New Southern Politics (2006)

    • In the 1960s Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, pushed through civil rights laws making blacks more nearly equal as citizens. Up to then, the Democratic party had been as described here. But at that point the Southern segregationists switched to the Republican party, and are still there. So today’s Democratic party is the party supporting progress, expansion of rights, and racial equality. Blacks, gays, Hispanics, and anybody else not a billionaire who vote Republican are going against their own interests.

      • Liberals are this, and conservatives are that, Democrats are this, and Republicans are that. Labels simplify it all, don’t they? Labeling people or groups makes it so easy to lie, doesn’t it stacygturner? Historically, this has always been the tactic of genocidal despots, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, Stalin, etc… Isn’t it bizarre that Democrats who refer to themselves as left wing liberals, and call the Nazi’s (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) right-wing conservatives, yet, share the same political tactics, legislative agenda, and policies as those same Nazi’s? Just change the labels, that will deceive the poor and uneducated masses. You claim that the Republican and Democrat parties switched and that you wrote a college essay on it? Well, then I have a challenge for you. Name names! Give actual names of well known individuals or politicians who switched parties, and show the records of their political positions and votes on issues and legislation before they switched and then after they switched parties. If what you say is true, then you should have no trouble giving example, after example of well-known individuals who’s political position’s and voting on issue’s did not change after switching parties. You should be able to cite example, after example of political issues that the Republican and Democrat parties opposed each other on (according to their voting records in Congress) before the 1960’s and after the 1960’s that demonstrate a switch in their positions. In other words, what one party was for, they are now against. And, what the other party was against, they are now for. Because, if what you say is even remotely true, then there would be a massive quantity of evidence and specific examples that you would be able to cite showing that the parties have switched. Did the parties change their political positions, or did people change their minds? No, the parties didn’t switch, people switched. The real question is why did they switch? Did the people make an informed, educated decision to radically change their political positions and belief’s? Or, were they deceived by lying politicians? So, I challenge you. No, I dare you, to find and cite this evidence to back your claim! Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats. The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “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.” Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party — and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House. Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing. President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s — at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South — Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections — but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South — but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower. At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race — but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism. The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise. There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle. Of course there were racists in the Republican party. There were racists in the Democratic party. The case of Johnson is well documented, while Nixon had his fantastical panoply of racial obsessions, touching blacks, Jews, Italians (“Don’t have their heads screwed on”), Irish (“They get mean when they drink”), and the Ivy League WASPs he hated so passionately (“Did one of those dirty bastards ever invite me to his f***ing men’s club or goddamn country club? Not once”). But the legislative record, the evolution of the electorate, the party platforms, the keynote speeches — none of them suggests a party-wide Republican about-face on civil rights. Neither does the history of the black vote. While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North. This development was not lost on Lyndon Johnson, who crafted his Great Society with the goal of exploiting widespread dependency for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unlike the New Deal, a flawed program that at least had the excuse of relying upon ideas that were at the time largely untested and enacted in the face of a worldwide economic emergency, Johnson’s Great Society was pure politics. Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared at a time when poverty had been declining for decades, and the first Job Corps office opened when the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. Congressional Republicans had long supported a program to assist the indigent elderly, but the Democrats insisted that the program cover all of the elderly — even though they were, then as now, the most affluent demographic, with 85 percent of them in households of above-average wealth. Democrats such as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze argued that the Great Society would end “dependency” among the elderly and the poor, but the programs were transparently designed merely to transfer dependency from private and local sources of support to federal agencies created and overseen by Johnson and his political heirs. In the context of the rest of his program, Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them. If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow. Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this — I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush. It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation — and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow. It was not the Civil War but the Cold War that shaped midcentury partisan politics. Eisenhower warned the country against the “military-industrial complex,” but in truth Ike’s ascent had represented the decisive victory of the interventionist, hawkish wing of the Republican party over what remained of the America First/Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft tendency. The Republican party had long been staunchly anti-Communist, but the post-war era saw that anti-Communism energized and looking for monsters to slay, both abroad — in the form of the Soviet Union and its satellites — and at home, in the form of the growing welfare state, the “creeping socialism” conservatives dreaded. By the middle 1960s, the semi-revolutionary Left was the liveliest current in U.S. politics, and Republicans’ unapologetic anti-Communism — especially conservatives’ rhetoric connecting international socialism abroad with the welfare state at home — left the Left with nowhere to go but the Democratic party. Vietnam was Johnson’s war, but by 1968 the Democratic party was not his alone. The schizophrenic presidential election of that year set the stage for the subsequent transformation of southern politics: Segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running as an independent, made a last stand in the old Confederacy but carried only five states, while Republican Richard Nixon, who had helped shepherd the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress, counted a number of Confederate states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee) among the 32 he carried. Democrat Hubert Humphrey was reduced to a northern fringe plus Texas. Mindful of the long-term realignment already under way in the South, Johnson informed Democrats worried about losing it after the 1964 act that “those states may be lost anyway.” Subsequent presidential elections bore him out: Nixon won a 49-state sweep in 1972, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election of 1976, Republicans in the following presidential elections would more or less occupy the South like Sherman. Bill Clinton would pick up a handful of southern states in his two contests, and Barack Obama had some success in the post-southern South, notably Virginia and Florida. The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures. — Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review and the author of The Dependency Agenda, which will be published by Encounter Books on May 29. This article appears in the May 28, 2012, issue of National Review. http://thelastcivilright.org/2012/08/19/the-democrat-party-vs-the-republican-party-who-is-the-true-champion-of-the-ending-slavery-the-civil-rights-movement-and-the-black-community/

      • Segregationist never switched to the Republican Party, they hung white Republicans, they hated the Rep Party, that is why they started the Kkk. Show me fact that they switched parties, Dems to this day are trying to hang there racists Confederate flag around the necks of the Rep Party, I’ll be damned if you are going to hang it around my Republican neck. Johnson pushed the CRA but it was the Republican Party that got it passed most of the Democrats Voted against it.

    • You’re right, Democrats use the word “Liberal” but have never been anything other than Fascists, their racism and bigotry turned into ethnocentric groups of collectivism and ghetto creation and control, enslaving every tiny group and then making them pay for the service. democrats will never change, I don’t care how rich they are or how much of this countries wealth they steal, they aren’t the supreme beings they pretend to be.

      • When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964, he is said to have told an aide, “We (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation.”

        The Republican Party was liberal and progressive with a mix of those that fought change sure…. the American political party most closely aligned with the cause of civil rights was the Grand Ol Party, before the extreme far right evangelical fundamentalist nutters took it over.

        Frederick Douglass, “I knew that however bad the Republican Party was, the Democratic Party was much worse. The elements of which the Republican party was composed gave better ground for the ultimate hope of the success of the colored man’s cause than those of the Democratic Party.”

        Well, something has surely gone awry since the conservatives all gathered in the Republican Party. You see the problem here is your use of fallacy, and considering it valid.
        Unfortunately the use of:

        Equivocation:

        Using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. For example: “Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do.”
        – “Deteriorata”, National Lampoon

        Euphemism:
        the use of words that sound better. The lab rat wasn’t killed, it was sacrificed. Mass murder wasn’t genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. The death of innocent bystanders is collateral damage. Microsoft doesn’t find bugs, or problems, or security vulnerabilities: they just discover an issue with a piece of software.
        This is related to Argument By Emotive Language, since the effect is to make a concept emotionally palatable.

        Weasel Wording:

        This is very much like Euphemism, except that the word changes are done to claim a new, different concept rather than soften the old concept. For example, an American President may not legally conduct a war without a declaration of Congress. So, various Presidents have conducted “police actions”, “armed incursions”, “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations”. Similarly, War Departments have become Departments of Defense, and untested medicines have become alternative medicines. The book “1984” has some particularly good examples.

        So what we have here, is a circle jerk where by you claim credit for liberal and progressive action, by party affiliation of 80+ years ago. We are either talking about Conservatives, or Progressives; or we are talking about various political parties. They are not the same thing. You may:

        Claim the Republicans championed women’s and civil rights, the rights of unions to assemble and defend themselves against the scum Pinkerton trash, child and women killers, I mean robber baron corporate interests and railroad tycoon “negotiators”.

        Or, you may:

        Claim the liberal/progressive philosophies and camps did the same.

        But you may not claim credit for one, but not the other some centuries later.

        You could be a Liberal Republican, back before you accepted the Pat Robertson’s,. Moral Majority and others busted with homosexual prostitutes and a bag of meth.

        Also fascism is a far right movement mor associated with Nationalism, and Oligarchies headed by a Dictator. It was a kneejerk mishmash of fear of the Communist rise closing in on Europe and Japan. The opposite of the far left Communist political philosophy.

        America has always been a Mixed Economy relying on the Marxist design of the welfare state and his layout of the ownership pf the means of production + capital to create the greatest military in the world, highways, airports and to take a shit on the damn moon. Marx gave us every economic principle, and even insurance formula that actuaries still rely, heavily on. So before you get your flag pin all in a bengazzimalulu and misattribute Adam Smith with shit he didn’t do or say, read Das Kapital and at least 5 others of his works to separate the words you associate with Darth Vader, with their correct meanings and context.

        So not learning their lesson from the slaughter we liberals place on the conservatives when they resisted change, and cried “For King and Country!” before we murdered them. It was disappointing and gave little satisfaction due to the blood not showing up on their nancy boy English red coats. Much more satisfying to see the conservative improperly use a Bowie and Springfield before they died as lazy, rapey traitors in Grey Coats.

        What coats will the conservatives wear on their next defeat? Always, always on the wrong side of history. By definition, you ask time to stop. You shout, I am not changing any more, and pose for a Norman Rockwell painting.

        Then the world changes around you, you grow old, and angry. You quit learning. Those most adaptable to change, survive.

        Here are you list of Republican/Southern Democrats.

        Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

        HueyP.Long,formerLouisianagovernorandformerU.S.Senator
        RossBarnett,formergovernorofMississippi
        EarlLong,formerthree-termLouisianagovernor
        LloydBentsen,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromTexas,formerSecretaryoftheTreasury,andDemocraticcandidateforVicePresidentin
        JeffersonDavis,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromMississippi,PresidentofConfederacy
        JamesO.Eastland,formerU.S.SenatorfromMississippi
        JohnR.Edwards,formerU.S.SenatorfromNorthCarolina,4DemocraticVicePresidentialnominee,Democraticpresidentialcandidatein4and.
        D.RobertGraham,formerU.S.SenatorfromFloridaandformerGovernorofFlorida
        RichardRussell,formerGeorgiagovernorandformerU.S.SenatorfromGeorgia
        LawtonChiles,formerU.S.SenatorfromFloridaandformerGovernorofFlorida
        EstesKefauver,formerRepresentative,formerU.S.SenatorfromTennesseeandDemocraticVicePresidentialnominee
        LyndonB.Johnson,formerU.S.RepresentativeandformerSenatorfromTexas,VicePresidentoftheUnitedStates(–),andPresidentoftheUnitedStates(–)
        JimmyCarter,formerGovernorofGeorgiaandPresidentoftheUnitedStates(–)
        BillClinton,formerGovernorofArkansasandPresidentoftheUnitedStates(–)
        AlGore,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromTennessee,VicePresidentoftheUnitedStates(–)andDemocraticnomineeforPresident
        PaulPatton,formerGovernorofKentucky
        J.WilliamFulbright,formerRepresentativefromArkansas,formerU.S.SenatorfromArkansasandlongest-servedchairmanoftheSenateForeignRelationsCommittee
        SamRayburn,formerCongressmanfromTexasandlongest-servedSpeakeroftheU.S.HouseofRepresentatives-longestservedintheHouse’shistory
        SamNunn,formerU.S.SenatorfromGeorgia
        MaxCleland,formerU.S.SenatorfromGeorgia
        JamesHovisHodges,formerGovernorofSouthCarolina
        FritzHollings,formerU.S.SenatorfromSouthCarolina,formerGovernorofSouthCarolina,4U.S.Presidentialcandidate[44]
        StenyHoyer,HouseMinorityWhip,formerHouseMajorityLeader,MemberoftheU.SHouseofRepresentativesfromMaryland’sthDistrict
        OlinD.Johnston,formerU.S.SenatorfromSouthCarolinaandformerGovernorofSouthCarolina
        JamesF.Byrnes,formerU.S.SecretaryofState,formerAssociateJusticeoftheU.S.SupremeCourt,formerRepresentative,formerU.S.Senator,formerGovernorofSouthCarolina
        JohnStennis,formerU.S.SenatorfromMississippi
        JohnMcClellan,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromArkansas
        SpessardHolland,formerU.S.SenatorfromFloridaandformerGovernorofFlorida
        ReubinAskew,formerGovernorofFloridaand4U.S.Presidentialcandidate
        PhilBredesen,formerGovernorofTennessee
        KathleenBlanco,formerGovernorofLouisiana
        RoyBarnes,formerGovernorofGeorgia
        JohnBarrow,formerU.S.RepresentativefromGeorgia
        BlancheLincoln,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromArkansas
        MarkPryor,formerU.S.SenatorfromArkansas
        DavidPryor,formerRepresentative,formerU.S.SenatorfromArkansasandformerGovernorofArkansas
        DaleBumpers,formerU.S.SenatorfromArkansasandformerGovernorofArkansas
        AlbenBarkley,formerRepresentative,formerU.S.SenatorfromKentuckyandformerU.S.VicePresident
        TravisChilders,formerU.S.representativefromMississippi
        J.BennettJohnston,formerU.S.SenatorfromLouisiana
        MaryLandrieu,formerU.S.SenatorfromLouisiana
        JohnBreaux,formerRepresentativeandformerU.S.SenatorfromLouisiana
        EdwinEdwards,formerRepresentativeandformerGovernorofLouisiana
        ZellB.Miller,formerU.S.SenatorfromGeorgiaandformerGeorgiagovernor
        TerrySanford,formerU.S.SenatorandformerGovernorfromNorthCarolina
        KayHagan,formerU.S.SenatorfromNorthCarolina
        RichardShelby,formerRepresentative,currentU.S.SenatorfromAlabama(Democratuntil4,nowRepublican)
        J.StromThurmond,formerU.S.SenatorfromSouthCarolinaandformerGovernorofSouthCarolina(Democratuntil4,thenRepublicanuntildeath),States’Rightcandidate(Dixiecrat)forPresidentin4
        MarkR.Warner,CurrentU.S.SenatorfromVirginia,formerVirginiagovernor
        DouglasWilder,formerVirginiaGovernor,firstAfrican-AmericaneverelectedGovernorintheU.S.,triedtogofortheDemocraticpresidentialnominationin,buteventuallywithdrewin
        RalphYarborough,formerU.S.SenatorfromTexas
        SonnyPerdue,formerGovernorofGeorgia(wasonceaDemocrat,nowRepublican)
        RobertByrd,formerRepresentative,formerU.S.SenatorfromWestVirginia,formerExaltedCyclopsoftheKuKluxKlan,presidentialcandidate,
        BillNelson,formerRepresentative,currentU.S.SenatorfromFlorida
        HowellHeflin,formersenatorfromAlabama
        MikeBeebe,formerGovernorofArkansas
        GeorgeC.Wallace,formergovernorofAlabama,AmericanIndependentPartycandidateforPresidentin,ranfortheDemocraticpresidentialnominationinand
        LesterMaddox,formergovernorofGeorgia
        JosephManchinIII,formergovernorofWestVirginia,currentU.S.SenatorfromWestVirginia,andformerSouthernGovernors’Associationchairman
        WendellFord,formerGovernorandformerSenatorfromKentucky
        MartinO’Malley,formerGovernorofMaryland
        A.B.”Happy”Chandler,formerGovernorandformerSenatorfromKentucky
        SteveBeshear,currentGovernorofKentucky
        MarthaLayneCollins,formerGovernorofKentuckyandchairofthe4DemocraticNationalConvention
        JimWebb,formerU.S.SenatorfromVirginiaandSecretaryoftheNavy
        BenChandler,formerAttorneyGeneralofKentuckyandformerCongressmanfromKentucky
        LawrencePattonMcDonald,FormerRepresentativefromGeorgia
        TimKaine,formerGovernorofVirginia,formerChairmanoftheDNC,currentU.S.SenatorfromVirginia

        Glad I could help.

    • Wikipedia is now a valid source. That’s equivalent to the Oxford Dictionary printing that “feminism” is a humanist group. OKAY! Whatever…. Please educate yourself. A Quoran professor thought he could spin history without someone catching his BS. He has yet to post a rebuttal to me…

      The parties never switched places…

      I’m not too surprised though to read this from a history professor, or someone that claims to be. I’ll tell you right now that just because you’re a professor, doesn’t mean you’re teaching the right thing (or the wrong thing), or if your point of view is even getting in the way of historical objectivity.

      I am not insulting you, but I am going to call you out for twisting history to favor your current biasy. And if you aren’t teaching this way, than I apologize, but if you are, than you should also know that professors aren’t to indoctrinate, rather to teach confirmed information and allow students to decipher this for themselves… But… The parties never switched places.

      Ever since the birth of the Republican party in 1854, Repubs were strong supporters of abolition. Meanwhile, Democrats had KKK members in Congress and Albert Gore Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of ’64, but gave a hell of a lengthy filibuster. Republicans championed the Constitutional amendments ending slavery (13th), giving African-Americans the right to vote, as well, securing that very right (14th: granting African-Americans citizenship and equal protection. The 15th amendment attempted to secure the right to vote for newly freed slaves).

      The Republicans — especially in the year of 1872 — was also mindful of its obligations to appeal to ‘the loyal women of America’ for their noble devotions to the cause of freedom. Why the Republicans didn’t consider giving women the right to vote at this time is beyond me, but later down the road, it was again the Republicans that led a platform for women’s suffrage to pass the 19th amendment.

      This was first introduced in the Senate by Ca. Repub Aaron A Sargent in 1878. Unfortunately it was lost under the drivel of the committee for years and years until it resurfaced in 1887, but defeated 16 to 34 thanks to whom? The Democrats.

      Years go by again and in 1914 it came back into play again… even though Congress was constantly bombarded with it throughout the years. This can be further researched by author Alana Jeydel’s “Political Women: The Women’s Movement, Political Institutions, the Battle for Women’s Suffrage and the ERA”.

      Democrats critique it as symbolic only and they continue to argue that Republicans tried keeping the women suffragists, suffering, while getting the 15th amendment ratified. But these efforts are hard-pressed and Democrats to this day cannot provide any source that points to factual evidence (which is one of the reasons the Big Lie emerged that the parties just switched places).

      Republican wives of those in Congress set up large gatherings to support the movement and many of these women introduced ideas unto Congress… but while all this was going on, Democrats refused to accept Republican inquiries even though much of the party spoke on women’s behalf.

      Now even though the KKK had died down much at this time, there was still a lot of resentment against African-Americans and guess what party they were in? That’s right… The Democrats. These folks were actively thwarting the voting rights of black men just added to the Constitution via the recent ratification of securement and thus had little incentive to allow black women, also, to win voting rights.

      Now, even though Democrats claim they were the party of states’ rights, this isn’t true for two reasons. One from history: Lincoln and two: The most recent, the HERO Act, signed by Mr. Obama. So to explain this: Although I do not feel Lincoln was that great of a president because ultimately he had conflicting ideologies, he felt that it wasn’t right to keep African-Americans from voting — epistemologically speaking — but didn’t exactly care for African-Americans either. This is my personal opinion of course, but I believe Lincoln is largely overrated, even though he did end up keeping the union together — albeit, barely — and really, at the time, shouldn’t have expected anything different as he totally raped the South of states’ rights.

      Two: The HERO Act. Obama recently signed, enacting the HERO Act.. I won’t get into major detail but The HERO Act of 2015 is Title III of S.178, Justice for Victims Trafficking Act of 2015. It amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to operate, within ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a Cyber Crimes Center to provide investigative assistance, training and equipment to support domestic and international investigations by ICE of cyber-related crimes.
      You can read more about that here: President Obama Signs HERO Act of 2015

      Continuing on… Many Democrats seem to believe that Republicans would have been against this, but that is absurd. Many Democrats claim Republicans would be against it because somehow that’d infringe on states’ rights. Which is again, absurd. To be against the HERO Act of 2015 is equal to that of being against Civil Rights. Why would any like-minded individual be in favor of the exploitation of children and sex-trafficking? Again, absurd and completely retarded. Yes I said retarded.

      Moving on… Women finally got their voting rights through the 19th amendment in 1920, but it didn’t exactly pan out in all states, at one time. Democrats were more like, forced into it as the Supreme Court took it on and defended women’s voting rights for good on Feb. 27, of 1922.

      Many Democrats praise LBJ for the Civil Rights… but it was ultimately the Republicans who kept pushing and pushing such. Mind you, these next words are from this “hero” of a politician: That LBJ dude:

      “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.” —LBJ
      There is nothing heroic about this unless you consider this political move; a charade for votes, sympathetic to the cause.

      And today, the MSM is bought and paid for by hundreds, if not thousands of corporate interests that ultimately keep money in politics that keep dividing our country over petty things… Things that should have long ago been over and done with. Shit that practically reflects a corporate plutocracy. So Democrats blame Republicans for being super rich, but the same elitist Democrats are equally wealthy, if not more. Republican candidates are vetted left and right but Democrats are not held to the same standards…

      Honestly I am not either. It’s back and forth, like a pendulum, swinging to and fro like hitch nuts on a highway. The longer one party is in office, the pendulum swings the other for just as long. We’ve come to a point where nothing gets done and only division prolongs our uncertainties. It’s insane! Fking insane!

      Best recognize yo… ‘Kno wat im sayin? Fo’ real!

  33. Pingback: Obama-inspired foundation gets its start, with $80 million in the bank - Page 11

  34. I think you would be better comparing progressive liberals vs conservative. Both parties move around trying to collect support from the masses.

  35. Pingback: Thomas Sowell Goes Through The History of Slavery | Religio-Political Talk (RPT)

  36. People who don’t study history are bound to repeat it.

    Forget party affiliation. Let’s view this in another angle.

    First, most politicians, if not all, are power-hungry, self-centered, egotistic people. So, to stay in power, they need to get re-elected. Comes the voting blocks. It’s like a playground baseball; we take turn picking a player – I’m anti-abortion, you’re pro-abortion, etc. Then to really be sure to get re-elected, we need to expand our voting blocks and keep them happy.

    After saying those, here is something for one to contemplate. If a party is for the poor, why would he be interested in making them rich (not poor)? If one becomes rich (not poor), wouldn’t he switch party?

    Therefore, the politician will find ways to make more people poor. Maybe this is reason the middle class are getting the brunt of those tax increase. Also, the politician need to keep the constituents happy. Maybe this the reason for the freebies. But those freebies comes with a price – your freedom. Viola, modern day slavery. Noticed that the freebies are enough to keep you down there.

    If they are really interested in helping you to get you out of the condition you’re in, there are many ways. Here’s an example:

    Instead of just giving you the 99 weeks of unemployment; they can instead work with companies where the companies can give you 3 months try out but your salary is paid for by the unemployment. After 3 months, the company can choose to hire you (which means you’re off the unemployment) or try another person.

    Multiple benefits here. The individual keeps his dignity and updates has skill set based on the market demand. During a downturn, companies can find good employees at low risk.

    I’m not saying this is a perfect solution and will need further refining but way better than just throwing money into the problem.

  37. “President Lyndon Johnson using the ‘N’ Word”

    On you tube.

    While casually talking about cigarette taxes. Like he certainly talked in his own living room. I’ve seen it, you can see it, we all can see and hear it. On you tube.

    The quote Hal refers to involves Johnson saying he would have blacks voting Democrat for the next two hundred years. No recording, but it is a virtual certainty that he said it and you can bank on it because it’s happening…hopefully not for 200 more years or whatever.

    But the “N” Word thing…it’s right there on you tube.

    Sorry. It’s there.

    • That is because there is no evidence that he actually stated that. It was suposedly stated in a private meeting with the governor who claimed it. There was no recording of it, and so far as I can find no corroboration.

  38. Howdy I am so happy I found your blog, I really found you
    by mistake, while I was looking on Yahoo for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like
    to say thank you for a remarkable post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it all at the moment but I have saved it
    and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back
    to read more, Please do keep up the excellent job.

    • That’s the problem with the Internet: there are so many sources of information that you can find the source you like instead of the most reliable source. This was a terrible article that ignored the history of the modern Republican Party. But if you are a Republican looking for reinforcement of your prejudices, selective histories like that presented here must make you very happy, albeit while keeping you totally ignorant.

  39. JUUUST one more thing…to clarify:

    I realize that different upbringings can have different effects. My point is that being who I am with the values I have, I would not have had slaves. Based on who and what Bill Clinton has demonstrated himself and his values to be, I believe he would have had slaves.

    Based on your denial of a person’s personhood I see no difference between your view of a person and the Confederate view of a person. Except that they granted 3/5 personhood to their lessers.

      • In fact, for purposes of representation the Democrats wanted their slaves to count as full persons.

        Makes me wonder just how “pro-choice” the Democrats would be if the unborn could vote…

  40. Just one more thing, (and as far as I’m concerned we were “done” in 1865, after we defeated the Democratic Confederacy)…

    If I had different parents I wouldn’t be me. But since I’m me I wouldn’t have owned slaves, wouldn’t have been a Nazi, and like my belief that African-Americans are persons not beneath hound dogs, I also maintain that Sarah Brown was a person, not beneath Democrats.

    If you want to argue about what I’d have done if I were someone else, then go argue with someone else.

    • “Just one more thing, (and as far as I’m concerned we were “done” in 1865, after we defeated the Democratic Confederacy)…

      If I had different parents I wouldn’t be me. But since I’m me I wouldn’t have owned slaves, wouldn’t have been a Nazi, and like my belief that African-Americans are persons not beneath hound dogs, I also maintain that Sarah Brown was a person, not beneath Democrats.

      If you want to argue about what I’d have done if I were someone else, then go argue with someone else.”

      Depends on your definition of “me”. It would be you, but it would be a different you. I did not say you would have owned them, but that you probably would have owned them if you were born to those who owned slaves, because it was a moral issue, and morals are mostly taught behavior.

      You like to claim that others would have owned slaves if they were both into that era, such as your assertion of Clinton, but you fail to realize that you would have probably owned them as well.

      • I just wanted to say thanks to cebowen. The perspective provided challenged the majority voice here, and made it look childish. Well done. The premise of this entire piece and the logic within is flawed. Cebowen, kudos. Remember however, you are debating with those that also push “blind faith”. Don’t be surprised when they ignore the bits they cannot counter.

  41. “No, of course you’re not implying that black teachers are too stupid to teach, only that they are not “the same level of teachers”, therefore black students can’t learn from them which is why they were bused away in the first place, which means they are too stupid to teach. So send the white kids there.”

    I made no such implications.. If you cannot argue based on facts then we are done here. The more you keep putting words in my mouth the more of an idiot you make yourself. I said they could not afford better teachers, it has nothing to do with the color of their skin…

    “Maybe just the Democratic white kids?”
    No clue what you are trying to argue here..

    ““Where did anyone say that? You keep on with fallacies”. Who is it that is claiming the parties have switched?”

    Or here. If you dont know what a fallacy is, look it up.

    ““I have not seen many Republicans that oppose welfare in general…it is almost always a racial thing”. How do those words taste? The only thing that sucks is you sucking the words back into your mouth.”
    Well seeing how like most conservatives you seem to want to remove parts of sentences to change the context. Reread the setense that you quoted, the perceived problem is almost always a racial thing, not the welfare.

    ““There were Republicans at the time”.

    Now please help me to understand how the Republicans existed in 1776 when they weren’t founded until 1854.”

    Republicans are conservatives, there have been conservative since the start of the nation. Therefore we can use the commutatie properties…

    “On and on and on…(if I seem to have missed something I didn’t miss it, just didn’t see anything that doesn’t adequately refute itself). Like the black teachers thing. Good Grief cebowen!”

    I have no clue what you are argueing here.

    “And the new South isn’t the old South anymore, no matter how much you want to say it is. Just ask Obama. He won Virginia twice. Maybe Virginians figured he’d be the first slave-president, huh?”

    it is still filled with racist consrervatives, so I would say it is still very similar.

    “I cannot know what I would have been opposed to? This is scary. You mean you cannot know and say that you wouldn’t have joined up with Hitler? Or that you wouldn’t be a mass murderer if it became convenient for you?”
    it is not a matter of convience, it is a matter of your morals are based on your life experiances. If you grew up in a differnt time, or was raised by a differnt set of parents there is no way you can know how you turned out. This is a fact, jack.

    “Do you even know what you stand for today? Do you have a personal moral constitution that knows the difference between right and wrong? I remember being appalled the very first time I ever considered slavery. When I was about 6 or 7 years old.”

    and that is because of how you were raised. Take away your parents, and others that instilled those morals and you cannot know how you would have felt…

    “You on the other hand, don’t find slavery to be “moral”, but you could easily see yourself owning slaves.”

    If certain things alligned right, anyone in that period could have owned slaves…

    “America is not enticing Israel to “go and serve other gods”. So the Bible isn’t telling Israel to wage Jihad against America.”

    According to the old testimate, which the jews follow, they are suposed too..

    “AND furthermore, the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament which tells Israel to preach the gospel to all nations, not destroy them. That is the goal of Christian Jews today.”

    Christian jews, WTF are you talking about. They are 2 seperate religions. The jews follow the torah, which includes the old testimate, the Christians the new testimate.. Jews do not follow the new testimate, and dont believe in Jesus…

    ““Which did what, oh yeah, it severed the ties”. I don’t know how you can be so ignorant of what you are incredibly trying to say! The Declaration (I’ll try one more time)…the Declaration was an act of the residents of America in which THEY severed ties with Britain. The return of Hong Kong to China was an act of BRITAIN, not the residents of Hong Kong. The British not only severed the ties themselves, they signed the residents of Hong Kong over to another governing entity–China.”

    Now you are trying to play word games, but it does not work. In both cases the is a severing of ties to the monarcy, it is just 2 differnt ways to do it. In one case we did it, in the other case the british did it. In the end the same thing happened, they severed ties.

    “How you find commonality with the Hong Kong circumstances and the Americans’ is beyond me, although the consistency with everything else you have said is right in line.”
    The commenality is that they both severed ties….

    “You do not even know what an allegory is (espionage/adultery). The point you missed (or didn’t miss at all and you know it) was that unfaithfulness in both cases led to death. In the Old Testament and even in the U.S.”
    That does not matter. According to the old testimate, which jews still follow to this day, adultery has a specific meaning. you cannot change the meaning on a whim and then just call it allegory.

    “And you have apparently never heard of the Continental Congress, which governed the United States of America prior to the Constitution.”

    As you stated before the articles of confederation sucked, paraphrasing, and did not give them the power to govern. It gave them power to recomendation. Before the constitution the USA was basically the European Union with less power.

    “And you apparently don’t understand that in order to govern there has to be an established entity to govern. Entity comes first, then government of that entity.”

    HAving a group of people to govern does not mean that they are a country. You form a country when they come together and agree to a common governance. Without that agreement there is no nation.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

    The entity already existed and the entity established its own Constitution in order to specifically perfect the already existing and already governed Union.

    “And Sarah Brown was not a person, not even 3/5 or 1/5 of a person.

    That’s why it was OK for Dr. George Killer to take it upon himself to stick a potassium-laced needle into he 0/5 of a person’s body. That’s why it was OK for her to live a life of suffering which culminated in her death at age five. That’s why it was OK to kill her. Because she wasn’t a person.

    You Democrats are still trying to tell us which persons are not persons. What’s changed? Where’s the “switched parties”?”

    Actually it is not the democrats. You can blame the romans, and the greeks, since that is where our words are derived form, not the democrats.

    • Here we have a southerner who clearly supports the Democrats, telling a northerner who supports the Republicans, that the southerner’s party is the party of the north and the northerner’s party is the party of the south.

      But I do have to admit you are right about one thing…there are many other factors besides migration to factor in when evaluating the changes in demographics of a region.

      Like the factor that nearly every racist in the south who was of voting age in 1964 is dead, including the only southern Democratic Senator to actually switch parties–Strom Thurmond.

      So the south is still filled with racist conservatives. Don’t know ’em, must be those Virginians who voted for Obama.

      And I don’t really care how the Continental Congress governed. They were the governing body of the newly established United States of America. And no, I don’t expect you to understand that considering that you still don’t understand the difference between a region declaring itself free and a region being handed over from one government to another.

      You even pretend to not know that there are Christian Jews, and you still make the ludicrous claim that the Bible commands Israel to wage Jihad against America.

      You don’t understand allegories.

      You don’t understand fallacies…

      No, you’re not really stupid. You are a highly intelligent and highly motivated deceiver.

      You accuse me of leaving out critical elements when quoting your posts. Wrong, the critical elements are there…you just want them muddled by things that are irrelevant. You stated clearly that conservatives don’t oppose “welfare in general”, but that their opposition is a “racial thing”. Whatever the reason it’s a “racial thing”.

      Will continue…

      • “Here we have a southerner who clearly supports the Democrats, telling a northerner who supports the Republicans, that the southerner’s party is the party of the north and the northerner’s party is the party of the south.”

        Where? Just because I am pointing out the flaws of your argument does not mean I support them… That is another fallacy of yours…

        “But I do have to admit you are right about one thing…there are many other factors besides migration to factor in when evaluating the changes in demographics of a region.”

        Correct, and your post ignores them all and bases it completely on a flawed interpretation.

        “So the south is still filled with racist conservatives. Don’t know ‘em, must be those Virginians who voted for Obama.” You are from the north, obviously you dont know them. I mean unless you watch them on the TV talking about how “blacks seemed happier in the fields singing” (the blues). Phil Robertson or

        “they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things” Cliven Bundy

        “You even pretend to not know that there are Christian Jews, .”

        There is no such thing as Christian Jews, there used to be Jewish Chirstians, that term refers to the group of jews who started the Christian religious movement. However there are no such thing to day. Jew is a religious group. Israeli is a nationality. There are Israeli Christians, but there are no Jewish Christians or Christian Jews. Are you going to next say there are Buddhist Christians, or Muslim Christians?

        “and you still make the ludicrous claim that the Bible commands Israel to wage Jihad against America”

        I made no such claim, there you go making stuff up again… Israel is a nation, not a religion. You do not have to be Jewish to live in Israel. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
        Also I quoted the part of the Old testament that is nearly identical to the part you hate about the Quran. If you believe Muslims have to be extremists because of the section in the Quran then you would have to feel the same about the Jews or, like normal, you are a hypocrite.

        “You don’t understand allegories.

        You don’t understand fallacies…”

        I understand both. You do not. You are the one who keeps using fallacies (my minor was in philosophy and logic in school by the way, never scored below 100 on anything. My major was CSC, so I understand logic.)

        “You are a highly intelligent and highly motivated deceiver.”

        Correct on the first part, incorrect on the second part. I am very intelligent, however I done deceive. After all it is you rewording sentences to make it say what you want it to say.

        “You accuse me of leaving out critical elements when quoting your posts. Wrong, the critical elements are there…you just want them muddled by things that are irrelevant. You stated clearly that conservatives don’t oppose “welfare in general”, but that their opposition is a “racial thing”. Whatever the reason it’s a “racial thing”.”

        You dont understand how words like “typically” modifies a verb? It shows degree, not that it always is the case. I quote your sentences verbatim, you have to reword mine, or skip items that show context in order to make it appear that I am saying something I am not.

      • “Just one more thing”…you don’t seem to have read my follow-up post at November 9, 1: 06am.

        The post begins with “JUUUST ine more thing…to clarify:”

        (The posts are not coming in per order of posting. Not sure why, but that’s what’s happening)

        On to “verbatim”.

        Verbatim:

        “To oppose welfare is one thing, but to try and target things that are majority black, that is another completely. I have not seen many republicans who oppose welfare in general, they want to want to limit things because of some perceived, yet not validated, set of people who are living better than them, it is almost always a racial thing that those people have, that they object to, butt hey typically dont want you to mess with people drinking or smoking… That is a problem.”

        (Spelling errors included not to imply that I am above shpelling errors, but to head off at the pass any attempt by you to do an end run around your own statements.)

        I do not need to quote everything you say. If you say that Jack and Jill went up the hill on a bright sunny Sunday morning to fetch a pail of water, I am still correct in quoting you as saying that “Jack and Jill went up the hill…to fetch a pail of water”. That’s why they went up the hill, and the quotes are entirely in keeping with your whole argument that Republicans’ opposition to welfare is racist and is the very racism that’s put them squarely in the middle of the camp of the “former” Democratic Confederacy.

        The quote by its very nature and content needs to be broken down into segments:

        “To oppose welfare is one thing, but to try and target things that are majority black,…”–such action surely would be considered racism.

        .”..I have not seen many republicans who oppose welfare in general,…”–this clearly implies Republican alignment with the concept of welfare payments being made to “acceptable” recipients.

        “…they want to want to limit things because of some perceived, yet not validated, set of people who are living better than them,…”–“perceived, yet not validated” is foundational to racism.

        “…it is almost always a racial thing…”–there it is cebowen, right there…again!

        “…that they object to, butt hey typically dont want you to mess with people drinking and smoking… That is a problem.”–You lost me on that one. What has drinking and smoking got to do with the subject at hand?

        Your point from the beginning has been that we have switched places. And your welfare argument is not only precisely what I just stated…it is in fact entirely wrong. Opposition to welfare is not even in the 1856 pro-slavery Democratic Party platform, so how can it be linked to any perceived “switch” of the parties?

        And why would opposition to welfare ever have been in their platform? Welfare has never helped African-Americans. Welfare only creates Democratic Plantation dependency and garners votes for the feeding hand. So it is welfare that diminishes a person…Democratic condescending welfare. Opposition to welfare means less tax burden for employers and more jobs for African-Americans–and less votes for Democrats.

        Welfare is the National hole-in-the-pocket.

        You have made one thing abundantly clear, and that is that in view of the fact that no one can connect in any way shape or form Republicans with support of slavery, you will use any convenient political difference in the parties’ social policies to try to create that phantom party switch that never happened.

        I had asked you to demonstare how the Republicans’ policies of today have directly harmed African-Americans and all you gave me was the welfare nonsense and how the refusal to bus black children into schools in white neighborhoods while, by unconstitutional force of law, moving white children into schools in black neighborhoods directly harms black children. (never mind that if the blacks’ very own black-run schools are bad the white children being sent there will be harmed…oh no, never mind that)

        And you ignore the fact that the great majority of 60’s Southern Democrats aren’t Republicans today because they have migrated to the cemetery. And the fact that Strom Thurmond was the only Southern Democratic Senator who voted against the 1964 CRA and then switched parties…to support Goldwater’s presidential run. Goldwater had opposed the CRA not because of racism, but because the CRA raised Constitutional concerns. Like was it Constitutional for the government to force employers to hire certain individuals?

        Right or wrong in their perceptions about the CRA, those were their perceptions.

        These were in fact the only concerns of any of the Republicans who voted against the CRA, while the Democrats…caring nothing about the Constitution (like today’s Democrats)…voted no because they hated the hue and tone of the color black.

        From Merriam-Webster:

        Full Definition of JEW

        1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah

        b: ISRAELITE

        2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D.

        3: a person belong to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people

        4: one whose religion is Judaism

        Per Halaka (the entire body of Jewish Law)…if one parent is not Jewish the rule states that the child takes the status of the mother.

        Jesus himself…was Jewish.

        And Jews for Jesus are Jewish. Check out their website.

        …so much for your perfect 100% record. Then again, maybe not because I think you already know this

        Now I’m not sure how Cliven Bundy makes the Obama-supporting State of Virginia the poster state of Republican racism.

        Seems the Tea Party supported his grazing rights. That’s awful. And racist somehow I’m sure. Now he’s in the Independent ranks…met him yet?

        The Quran demands the killing of non-believers. The Old Testament demanded the killing of those who enticed Israel to other gods. Again, even this is thoroughly past tense while the Quran is present tense and being currently followed per its current Islamic doctrine.

        You have stated as fact that the Republicans have switched places with the Democrats. That’s a big claim. I cannot even state as fact that Bill Clinton would have owned slaves. I believe his actions toward women indicate his true attitude about their dignity and worth, and that based on this attitude he would probably have owned slaves…and mistreated them.

        If you are going to continue the false claim that Republicans and Democrats have “switched places”, then you are going to have to show that they really have switched. This includes stated pro-slavery views and a verifiable stated opposition to civil rights along with a Republican declaration that a black person is 3/5 of a person. You are going to have to demonstrate that Republicans are currently lynching blacks. You are going to have to demonstrate an official Republican Party statement of intent to secede from the Union in order that they may own slaves in their regions.

        Court is in session and the burden of proof is on you.

        Have at it…

      • The quote by its very nature and content needs to be broken down into segments:

        “To oppose welfare is one thing, but to try and target things that are majority black,…”–such action surely would be considered racism.
        Correct, however that was a pondering statement.

        .”..I have not seen many republicans who oppose welfare in general,…”–this clearly implies Republican alignment with the concept of welfare payments being made to “acceptable” recipients.
        Yes

        “…they want to want to limit things because of some perceived, yet not validated, set of people who are living better than them,…”–“perceived, yet not validated” is foundational to racism.

        “…it is almost always a racial thing…”–there it is cebowen, right there…again!

        yes and we are talking about the ones who attack, and want to restrict welfare. Not in general, but the onses that get mad, and voice their oppinion.

        “…that they object to, butt hey typically dont want you to mess with people drinking and smoking… That is a problem.”–You lost me on that one. What has drinking and smoking got to do with the subject at hand?

        It matters a great deal. If you dont want people on welfare to have things that may be paid for with money that could go to the items welfare is paying for then be consistant. If you are going to be made because someone spent $200 to buy a cell phone every 2 years, something considered a nessesity, then you should damn well be upset that someone smokes a pack a day.

        “Your point from the beginning has been that we have switched places. And your welfare argument is not only precisely what I just stated…it is in fact entirely wrong. Opposition to welfare is not even in the 1856 pro-slavery Democratic Party platform, so how can it be linked to any perceived “switch” of the parties?”

        My argument to welfare has nothing to do with my argument against your argument of the switching of parties. It was direclty related to your strawman about opposing welfare. It was a tangent started by you….

        “And why would opposition to welfare ever have been in their platform? Welfare has never helped African-Americans. Welfare only creates Democratic Plantation dependency and garners votes for the feeding hand. So it is welfare that diminishes a person…Democratic condescending welfare. Opposition to welfare means less tax burden for employers and more jobs for African-Americans–and less votes for Democrats.”

        I never stated it was in the the platform, again you brought up welfare, now you get upset that I argue against you on it, and imply I brought it up as an argument.

        “Welfare is the National hole-in-the-pocket.”

        It is also a saftey net. To be honest there are very few welfare plans. Social security, medicare, unemployment and such are insurance policies we pay for as safety nets, but republicans do not view them as such, even though they are structured exactly that way. You get out if you put into them, and typically far less.

        “You have made one thing abundantly clear, and that is that in view of the fact that no one can connect in any way shape or form Republicans with support of slavery, you will use any convenient political difference in the parties’ social policies to try to create that phantom party switch that never happened.”
        I have done no such thing. My argument against the swapping has been, and always had been demographical, and current vs former platforms. They have nearly the same age/income/color demographics, and they have some most of the same platform, such as states rights, something that republicans of the time did not believe in, as they wre federalist. You have refused to argue against these things. Just like you refused to counter that your numbers are wholey misrepresented talking about the pew study.

        “I had asked you to demonstare how the Republicans’ policies of today have directly harmed African-Americans and all you gave me was the welfare nonsense and how the refusal to bus black children into schools in white neighborhoods while, by unconstitutional force of law, moving white children into schools in black neighborhoods directly harms black children. (never mind that if the blacks’ very own black-run schools are bad the white children being sent there will be harmed…oh no, never mind that)”

        I have done no such thing. You brought up the refusal to bus black children, and asked how harmed them, and I told you. And the intenition of the “busing” was to get the tax money paid for the schools to even out so that all the schools could have been of good quality, not excellant for the whites and poor for the blacks.

        “And you ignore the fact that the great majority of 60’s Southern Democrats aren’t Republicans today because they have migrated to the cemetery. And the fact that Strom Thurmond was the only Southern Democratic Senator who voted against the 1964 CRA and then switched parties…to support Goldwater’s presidential run. Goldwater had opposed the CRA not because of racism, but because the CRA raised Constitutional concerns. Like was it Constitutional for the government to force employers to hire certain individuals?”

        I dont ignore anything. I am not talking about a 1-1 switch, I am talking about demographics and policies. Also what part of the CRA required them to hire certain individuals? Be clear that your decription takes into account the definition of the word certain. I am not 100% clear that I am happy with affirmative action as a whole, but I do know it was the only way to get a lot of the white racists to hire blacks.

        “Right or wrong in their perceptions about the CRA, those were their perceptions.”
        And what does this have to do with anything? Their percetions, really? That is not in any way relavant.

        “These were in fact the only concerns of any of the Republicans who voted against the CRA, while the Democrats…caring nothing about the Constitution (like today’s Democrats)…voted no because they hated the hue and tone of the color black.” Talk about revisionist. There were people on both sides who hated it because of the hue and tone of their skin, however the majority were not the dems.

        “From Merriam-Webster:

        Full Definition of JEW

        1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah

        b: ISRAELITE

        2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century B.C. to the first century A.D.

        3: a person belong to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people

        4: one whose religion is Judaism

        Per Halaka (the entire body of Jewish Law)…if one parent is not Jewish the rule states that the child takes the status of the mother.

        Jesus himself…was Jewish.

        And Jews for Jesus are Jewish. Check out their website.”

        So saying “Jewish” Christian was talking about decendant, because I am sure when you talk about people of Norse ancestory and are Christian you call them Norse Christians always? So this was an attempt to play word games by you. The fact still remains,

        ” They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”

        Is very identical to the Quran on the subject. And this is from the bible that Jews, as in the religion, follow to this day.

        “Now I’m not sure how Cliven Bundy makes the Obama-supporting State of Virginia the poster state of Republican racism.”
        Not sure what you are saying in this. Point out directly racist statements by high profile Dems, and ill do it for high profile Repubs and we will see who has more.

        “Seems the Tea Party supported his grazing rights. That’s awful. And racist somehow I’m sure. Now he’s in the Independent ranks…met him yet?”

        First of all Tea Partiers seem to be the even more extreme when it comes to this, but still has no bearing on the argument. And indepandants are really just moderate Republicans. I actually have a lot of respect for most independants, other than the party he joined, because they seem to want to follow the constitition more than the Dems or the Republicans. And lets be honest neither of those 2 parties want to follow the consitution fully…

        “The Quran demands the killing of non-believers. The Old Testament demanded the killing of those who enticed Israel to other gods. Again, even this is thoroughly past tense while the Quran is present tense and being currently followed per its current Islamic doctrine.”

        ” They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman”

        Umm, this says kill everyone who is a nonbeliever, and came from the old testimate, so I am not sure where you are getting this information. It also is still an active religion, but one you call peacefull. If your argument was about the people killing others then we would not be having this conversation here, but your entire argument was based on the wording of the Quran, and how peaceful the Jewish religion is. But when I point out the same statements in the Jewish bibile you seem to move the goal posts.

        “You have stated as fact that the Republicans have switched places with the Democrats. That’s a big claim. I cannot even state as fact that Bill Clinton would have owned slaves. I believe his actions toward women indicate his true attitude about their dignity and worth, and that based on this attitude he would probably have owned slaves…and mistreated them.”

        So your argument is that you know for a fact, 100% that you would not own slaves, but because someone treates some other group of people poorly then they would 100% own slaves. As though there were no people who treate women poorly who did not own slaves at the time.

        “If you are going to continue the false claim that Republicans and Democrats have “switched places”, then you are going to have to show that they really have switched. This includes stated pro-slavery views and a verifiable stated opposition to civil rights along with a Republican declaration that a black person is 3/5 of a person. You are going to have to demonstrate that Republicans are currently lynching blacks. You are going to have to demonstrate an official Republican Party statement of intent to secede from the Union in order that they may own slaves in their regions.

        Court is in session and the burden of proof is on you.

        Have at it…”

        So in order to prove that they switched places I have to prove that the entire platform is the same? Tell you what, show that the democrats DIDNT CHANGE, that includes proving they still have pro-slavery views and a verifiyable stated oppositition to civil rights along with the Democratic Declaration that a black person is 3/5 of a person. You are going to have to demonstrate that Democrats are currently lynching blacks. You are going to have to demonstrate an offical Democrating Party statement about the intent to seceed from the Uniion in order that they may own slaves in their regions…

        If you want put assine requirements on this, I will jsut repeat yours.

      • Boy Howdy, that’s a tough one. You sure put one over on me that I couldn’t possibly see coming.

        Nope, two can play my game can’t they?

        Problem.

        Two can’t play my game. It’s rigged…by the Thirteenth Amendment.

        You see, whereas my questions to you are legitimate in every sense, and whereas the answers to your questions clearly lie all the way back in the 1856 Democratic Party Platform…

        The problem for you is that whereas the Republicans opposed slavery from the get-go on principle, the Democrats got the Thirteenth Amendment ramrodded down their throats…by the Republicans. So all of their supposed “switch” wasn’t really a switch at all, but a forced compliance with Republican Law. Tea Party Law.

        And you still can’t show that the Republicans switched either.

        From me:

        “I cannot even state as fact that Bill Clinton would have owned slaves”.

        Response from you:

        “So your argument is that you know for a fact, 100% that you would not own slaves, but because someone treats some other group of people poorly then they would 100% own slaves.”

        A little rearranging is in order, using quotes from both of us:

        “I cannot even state as fact that…because someone treats some other group of people poorly then they would 100% have owned slaves.”

        Just thought I’d help you refute your own false statement.

        You just HAVE to make Republicans into racists. Just won’t let go of that bone. You know, if all Americans stood up for the truth the way you fight tooth and claw to uphold a lie…there would never have been Democrats and their 3/5 of a person. Or in the case of Sarah Brown, 0/5 of a person.

        Still can’t get over how the Democrats have to de-personize someone. Anyone. Anyone conveniently powerless.

        On the “Jewish Bible”, you are correct. The goal posts have been moved. The New Testament is the
        the new goal post. The New Testament was written by Jewish followers of Jesus Christ, including the Apostle Paul who in fact was a Jewish Pharisee and a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. Benjamin in fact being part of the southern Kingdom of Judah which consisted of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (the tribe of Jesus).

        Good Grief, Gentile Christians (per Romans 11: 17) are actually grafted into Israel. And I don’t think I’m in any danger of waging Jihad against myself.

        So you see (“No I won’t see”), the New Testament is the completion of the Jewish Bible and it tells Jews to love their enemies (albeit the U.S. is not their enemy). And to preach the gospel to every nation.

        Where in the Quran are Islamists commanded to love the occupants of the World Trade Center?

      • “Boy Howdy, that’s a tough one. You sure put one over on me that I couldn’t possibly see coming.

        Nope, two can play my game can’t they?

        Problem.

        Two can’t play my game. It’s rigged…by the Thirteenth Amendment.

        You see, whereas my questions to you are legitimate in every sense, and whereas the answers to your questions clearly lie all the way back in the 1856 Democratic Party Platform…

        The problem for you is that whereas the Republicans opposed slavery from the get-go on principle, the Democrats got the Thirteenth Amendment ramrodded down their throats…by the Republicans. So all of their supposed “switch” wasn’t really a switch at all, but a forced compliance with Republican Law. Tea Party Law.”

        Your argument is completely flawed. No one is arguing that the dems at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment were good people, and since it was passed in the 1800s it has no bearing on if the parties switched in the 1950s+ time frame. your argument shows nothing in regards to anything that was stated in this entire thread, just another irrelavant tangent on your behalf.

        “And you still can’t show that the Republicans switched either.”
        I can show that there are more racist Republicans, especially in the south, then there are racist dems anywhere in the US. I can show that the demographics of both parties switched. It is vastly more than you can show on your cause.

        From me:

        “I cannot even state as fact that Bill Clinton would have owned slaves”.

        Response from you:

        ““So your argument is that you know for a fact, 100% that you would not own slaves, but because someone treats some other group of people poorly then they would 100% own slaves.”

        A little rearranging is in order, using quotes from both of us:

        “I cannot even state as fact that…because someone treats some other group of people poorly then they would 100% have owned slaves.”

        Just thought I’d help you refute your own false statement.”
        I missed your statement, therefore it was completely correct (I can admit when I make mistakes). Your logic is still flawed however, because the 2 events are not mutually exclusive you cannot say he “probably would have owned slaves”

        “You just HAVE to make Republicans into racists. Just won’t let go of that bone.”

        I don’t “just HAVE” to make anything. I have no dog in the fight, other than my black family members. If Republicans are racist or not only affects me when and if they make racist policy.

        “You know, if all Americans stood up for the truth the way you fight tooth and claw to uphold a lie…”

        you still have not proven it is a lie….

        ” Or in the case of Sarah Brown, 0/5 of a person.”
        Sarah Brown is now a person, but as a fetus she was not. Do you really not understand definitions? Words created before there were liberals and conservatives, or do you just like to make up meanings when they suit your argument?

        “Still can’t get over how the Democrats have to de-personize someone. Anyone. Anyone conveniently powerless.”
        Someone means some person. As we have already discussed person requires an independent being, a definition not created by liberals, but if you are going to talk about facts at least get your definitions correct.

        “On the “Jewish Bible”, you are correct. The goal posts have been moved. The New Testament is the
        the new goal post. The New Testament was written by Jewish followers of Jesus Christ, including the Apostle Paul who in fact was a Jewish Pharisee and a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. Benjamin in fact being part of the southern Kingdom of Judah which consisted of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (the tribe of Jesus).”

        You are still confusing Jewish the heritage and Jewish the religion. The Jewish religion does not believe in Jesus Christ, does not believe he was the son of God, and still follow the old testimate (first five books) also known as the Torah. No one is arguing that Jesus was not a Jew, nor that any of his aposteles were not Jews.

        “Good Grief, Gentile Christians (per Romans 11: 17) are actually grafted into Israel. And I don’t think I’m in any danger of waging Jihad against myself.”

        You are not Jewish as in the religion.

        “So you see (“No I won’t see”), the New Testament is the completion of the Jewish Bible and it tells Jews to love their enemies (albeit the U.S. is not their enemy). And to preach the gospel to every nation.”

        That is you opinion, not the opinion of the Jewish, as in the religion.

        “Where in the Quran are Islamists commanded to love the occupants of the World Trade Center?”

        Where is it in the Torah, or do you still believe that all Jewish, as in the religion, follow the new testament? I wonder why they still celebrate Hanukkah, and not Christmas.

      • The point that I am making about the Jewish religion as opposed to the Islamic religion is that the Quran as it stands, is the full and complete text of their faith.

        The Torah as it stands, is not the full and complete text of the Jewish faith. The Jewish faith is founded in truth, beginning with the Torah and ending–not with Deuteronomy, but with the Revelation.

        In other words Islam has their book right, whereas the Jews do not.

        The Jews very own Old Testament (all the way to Malachi–it doesn’t end with the Torah) militates against current Judaism. This is why Jews for Jesus exists. Those Jews have read Daniel and Isaiah’s prophecies of the Messiah and have recognized that only Jesus Christ could have ever or could ever fulfill those prophecies. The timeline of Daniel ran from 45 B.C. to A.D. 30…per the Jewish calendar the completion of the stated 69 weeks of years (7 year periods).

        Furthermore, if you believe the Jews are following their faith correctly per the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament commands the Jews to wage Jihad against the U.S., then why aren’t they doing it?

        I can tell you that if they were I’d have every last orthodox Jew bounced out of here right along with Islam.

        Maybe you ought to read the Book of Joshua. When Israel was destroying Jericho they spared the house of Rahab and her family. Rahab was just as much a citizen of Jericho as Bin Laden would have been. Furthermore, God had promised Abraham that he wouldn’t destroy Sodom if there could be found ten righteous men in the city. There are amazingly, in fact, ten righteous men even in San Francisco…about ten or so. Almost.

        Now I realize that President Obama has declared “We are not a Christian nation”, but he speaks for himself. America is still the world’s center of faith in the God of Israel, AND Israel’s foremost ally, and Israel knows full well that God has not commanded them to wage Jihad against us.

        Now you have stated that you can show me demographic proof that there are more racist Republicans than racist Democrats.

        These facts skew any demographic “proof” you try to provide…

        1) The migration information I gave you on the South utterly destroys any connection with red Republican Southern states and former blue Democratic Confederate racism.

        2) The cemeteries are where you’ll find the old Southern racists…and they’re still voting Democratic.

        3) The overwhelming and continuing support of the 1964 CRA by Republicans.

        4) The very recent elections of three Southern Democratic presidents with heavy support from the North.

        5) AND the fact, as I stated, that the Democrats only abandoned slavery because they were forced to by Republican Law. How does that relate to today’s current Democrats? In the Democrats’ very own denial of personhood now for the second time, this time being the personhood of an unborn child.

        They’ve gone from 3/5 down to 0/5. I don’t think that’s much of an “improvement”. But you can bet there’d be a change if the unborn could vote.

      • “The point that I am making about the Jewish religion as opposed to the Islamic religion is that the Quran as it stands, is the full and complete text of their faith.

        The Torah as it stands, is not the full and complete text of the Jewish faith. The Jewish faith is founded in truth, beginning with the Torah and ending–not with Deuteronomy, but with the Revelation.”

        Look up the Tanakh. It is the version of the old testament that contains all of the Jewish cannon. I have given you one quote from the Torah, and one quote from the rest of their cannon (chronicles). It ends with “the twelve”…

        You keep try ing to insist that the Jews, as the religion, follow the new testament. Even here, by saying to goes all the way to the book of Revelations, which is the final book of the new testament. If that was the case they would not be Jews, as in the religion, but Christians.

        “In other words Islam has their book right, whereas the Jews do not.”

        In other words both have their books, and both books say similar things about non believers, but one is OK with you, but the other is not, just because it breaks with your entire world vision, that it is not just extremists but the the entire religion at fault.

        “The Jews very own Old Testament (all the way to Malachi–it doesn’t end with the Torah) militates against current Judaism. This is why Jews for Jesus exists. Those Jews have read Daniel and Isaiah’s prophecies of the Messiah and have recognized that only Jesus Christ could have ever or could ever fulfill those prophecies. The timeline of Daniel ran from 45 B.C. to A.D. 30…per the Jewish calendar the completion of the stated 69 weeks of years (7 year periods).”

        The book of Malachi ends the Christian version of the old testament, you do realize, there is different versions right, and you are looking at the Christian version?

        Also a small group of Jews, as in who knows what, does not change the general rule that Jews do not follow or believe in Jesus. Shoot Islam is closer to Christianity in this regard, because it recognizes him as a prophet.

        “Furthermore, if you believe the Jews are following their faith correctly per the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament commands the Jews to wage Jihad against the U.S., then why aren’t they doing it?”

        Who knows, probably because the Jews, as a heritage, have been beaten to death by others wanting to wipe them out, that they have retreated to an area and decided to wipe out a group of people who offered to help them when they arrived in the area. They dont time to deal with the rest of us because of their size. Some of them are doing similar things financially such in up state new york where they took over the school board, even though they have no kids in the schools, so they could wipe out the education system there.

        “I can tell you that if they were I’d have every last orthodox Jew bounced out of here right along with Islam.”

        So your argument is now not about the religion itself, but about the people following the religion, just because it suits your argument to flip flop.

        “Maybe you ought to read the Book of Joshua. When Israel was destroying Jericho they spared the house of Rahab and her family. Rahab was just as much a citizen of Jericho as Bin Laden would have been. Furthermore, God had promised Abraham that he wouldn’t destroy Sodom if there could be found ten righteous men in the city. There are amazingly, in fact, ten righteous men even in San Francisco…about ten or so. Almost.”

        Completely irrelevant to any of our conversations, just another of your tangents.

        “Now I realize that President Obama has declared “We are not a Christian nation”, but he speaks for himself. America is still the world’s center of faith in the God of Israel, AND Israel’s foremost ally, and Israel knows full well that God has not commanded them to wage Jihad against us.”

        Actually you are confusing Obama with Washington and the first congress, made up largely of the founding fathers. I know that silly little history popping up again. Also Israel is seen as the center of faith in the God of Israel, which is why there are millions of pilgrimages there every year, yet none to the USA.

        “Now you have stated that you can show me demographic proof that there are more racist Republicans than racist Democrats.

        “These facts skew any demographic “proof” you try to provide…”

        “1) The migration information I gave you on the South utterly destroys any connection with red Republican Southern states and former blue Democratic Confederate racism.”

        The migration information is flawed, something you still have not addressed. It does not show any demographics and therefore cannot be linked to any political side, therefore it does not destroy anything other than any notion that you have any logic in your body.

        “2) The cemeteries are where you’ll find the old Southern racists…and they’re still voting Democratic.”
        Say what? this makes no sense. The only thing I can think you are talking about is voter fraud which is pretty much non existent, and just an excuse for republicans to disenfranchise democratic voters.

        “3) The overwhelming and continuing support of the 1964 CRA by Republicans.”
        Citation please, I know the KKK, which is extreme right wing, GOP voting, group of the south does not support it.

        “4) The very recent elections of three Southern Democratic presidents with heavy support from the North.”
        Has no bearing on a switch in party stances…

        “5) AND the fact, as I stated, that the Democrats only abandoned slavery because they were forced to by Republican Law. How does that relate to today’s current Democrats? ”
        again has no bearing on, and is seen as the start of, the switch of the 2 parties.

        “In the Democrats’ very own denial of personhood now for the second time, this time being the personhood of an unborn child.”
        The dictionary is the one that denies it personhood, you are still hung up on that. Because an unborn child is also not considered a citizen of the US, but you dont seem to take issue with that.

        “They’ve gone from 3/5 down to 0/5. I don’t think that’s much of an “improvement”. But you can bet there’d be a change if the unborn could vote.”

        Wow, just wow, the idiocy of that post.

      • Not much to respond to there that hasn’t already been debunked…so I am going to back up just a little bit to point out something I overlooked:

        Affirmative Action/Quotas are in fact the now identifiable confirmation of Senator Goldwater’s concerns about what the CRA could potentially lead to. Therefore your claim that the Republicans have “switched” would better be served not by fighting my statement, but by endorsing it. Clearly that outcome of the CRA was not what the Republicans intended nor anticipated.

        President Johnson certainly did though, as his own statement confirms: “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights”.. Another way to buy votes. Pretty obvious why he supported the CRA.

        Continuing…if the south were now completely populated by Martians you would (I’m sorry–probably would) say they are the former slave owners now voting Republican.

        You have promised proof that the Republicans are racists and provided none.

        You state, again without proof, that the KKK ( a Democratic organization) now votes GOP, but your just posted rant against Jews does little to separate your Democrats from the KKK. In fact, I’m beginning to sense a connection here with your insistence that the Jewish faith is no better than Islam.

        Hitler himself instigated hatred of Jews by making claims similar to your claim that Jews are trying to “wipe out the education system there”.

        And that the Jews “…decided to wipe out a group of people who offered to help them when they arrived in the area”. No wonder you want to identify Jews as a religion and not a race…without that “disclaimer” your charge would be as racist as anything the KKK ever published.

        And that’s a pretty weak disclaimer.

        In fact, the entire religion of Islam IS at fault, as their entire religion is founded on the terrorist demands of the Quran.

        You have gone to your own extremes to show that the Bible demands that Israel wage Jihad against the U.S. and the best argument you could come up with when shown otherwise was “…just another of your tangents”.

        I’ll give you a little slack here. Maybe you didn’t understand my “tangent”, so I’ll try to state it simply:

        Israel never “waged Jihad” against those who were on Israel’s side (and contrary to what you just posted, they still don’t). And God didn’t kill the one righteous man in San Fra–I mean Sodom, whereas the 911 Quran-inspired bombers got anyone and everyone they could.

        The U.S….the Republican portion anyway…is on Israel’s side.

        And there are far more individuals in America who believe the Biblical God (OT and NT) than the entire population of Israel…

        From Georgetown University…78.2 million Americans identify as Catholics alone. This statistic drubs your own claim right into the quicksand–no need to even address the numbers of orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians here.

        Israel WILL once again be the center of the Kingdom of God, but that is in the future.

        How did Sarah Brown become a person the instant she was born? What if she had been premature? What if she was late? Is there something magical about the physical process of birth that instills personhood as it happens?

        So we have Jews, the unborn, and blacks. You are running a solid two out of three.

        Do you really oppose racism at all?

      • “Affirmative Action/Quotas are in fact the now identifiable confirmation of Senator Goldwater’s concerns about what the CRA could potentially lead to. Therefore your claim that the Republicans have “switched” would better be served not by fighting my statement, but by endorsing it. Clearly that outcome of the CRA was not what the Republicans intended nor anticipated.”

        I said it before and ill say it again, I am on the fence about affirmative action. It was the only way that southern whites would hire blacks, even if they were overqualified, but seems to have gone beyong that. Not sure your point here.

        “President Johnson certainly did though, as his own statement confirms: “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights”.. Another way to buy votes. Pretty obvious why he supported the CRA.”

        Just like normal, putting words in someones mouth. Sorry to tell you it does NOT confirm your beliefs…

        “Continuing…if the south were now completely populated by Martians you would (I’m sorry–probably would) say they are the former slave owners now voting Republican.”

        WTF are you taking about….

        “You have promised proof that the Republicans are racists and provided none.”

        I have promised no such thing. I promised to have a tick for tack with you about showing whos members say the most racist things, but never promised to show all republicans are racists, because I never made the claim that all republicans are racist. You really do love your logical fallacies.

        “You state, again without proof, that the KKK ( a Democratic organization) now votes GOP, but your just posted rant against Jews does little to separate your Democrats from the KKK. In fact, I’m beginning to sense a connection here with your insistence that the Jewish faith is no better than Islam.”

        Umm, even the KKK claims they are ultra conservative extreme right wing. That sounds a far cry from the left…

        “Hitler himself instigated hatred of Jews by making claims similar to your claim that Jews are trying to “wipe out the education system there”.”

        I dont hate Jews, I dont hate anyone, except those that dont understand logic.

        “And that the Jews “…decided to wipe out a group of people who offered to help them when they arrived in the area”.

        After the holocaust the Palestine welcomed the Jews, who then started forcing the Palestine out of their homes and lands, to recreate their promise land.

        “No wonder you want to identify Jews as a religion and not a race…without that “disclaimer” your charge would be as racist as anything the KKK ever published.””

        I have always stated that there is a Jewish ethnic group. I am not sure what you are talking about. And no stating a fact that happened in history does not make me racist against Jews, that is you grasping at straws.

        “In fact, the entire religion of Islam IS at fault, as their entire religion is founded on the terrorist demands of the Quran.”

        So Palestine deserved to be wiped out because their religion demands they kill non followers, even though they welcomed the Jews, by the Jews whose religion also demands they kill non followers. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

        You have gone to your own extremes to show that the Bible demands that Israel wage Jihad against the U.S. and the best argument you could come up with when shown otherwise was “…just another of your tangents”.

        I never made any such claim, and I would dare you to quote where said they had to wage war on the US, I said they are told by their religion to kill non believers, not attack any nation…

        Also your statement did not counter anything. It was a tangent talking about finding 10 righteous men in San Fran….It had no bearing.. I am starting to sense a theme, and that is you cannot put up a coherent thought.

        “Israel never “waged Jihad” against those who were on Israel’s side (and contrary to what you just posted, they still don’t).”

        So there is no Israeli Palestinian war, great, you may want to tell them that..

        “And God didn’t kill the one righteous man in San Fra–I mean Sodom, whereas the 911 Quran-inspired bombers got anyone and everyone they could.” This is the tangent. Who god did or did not kill is not in question here. However the Israelis have attacked Palestine for pretty much even the smallest slight now, even though they have constantly advanced into their land.

        “The U.S….the Republican portion anyway…is on Israel’s side.”

        That does not make them right…

        “And there are far more individuals in America who believe the Biblical God (OT and NT) than the entire population of Israel…
        From Georgetown University…78.2 million Americans identify as Catholics alone. This statistic drubs your own claim right into the quicksand–no need to even address the numbers of orthodox Jews and evangelical Christians here.”

        Again an irrelevant tangent. In fact I am not even sure what point you are trying to counter.

        “Israel WILL once again be the center of the Kingdom of God, but that is in the future.”

        Believe what you will.

        “How did Sarah Brown become a person the instant she was born? What if she had been premature? What if she was late? Is there something magical about the physical process of birth that instills personhood as it happens?”

        The instance she was born she became an individual, which is the criteria for being a person. Being premature would have also caused her to be a person, because she was born, and an individual. Yes there is something magical, it is called qualifications of a definition. You either meet them or you dont.

        “So we have Jews, the unborn, and blacks. You are running a solid two out of three.
        Do you really oppose racism at all?”

        I have no clue what you are talking about. Is this another of your fallacies? Something along the lines if I disagree with you I have to be a racist and an antisemitic?

      • “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation…”

        That wasn’t from George Washington, it’s a quote from Hussein Obama.

        Being “right-wing” does not make the KKK Republicans any more than being “liberal” makes the Democrats pro-liberty. But if you insist it does the best rationale for that statement is in the fact that the last recorded lynching was performed in 1981 by KKK Democrats.

        Haven’t been any since they “joined” the GOP.

        Your rationale that Sarah Brown was not a person until the moment she was born is identical to the Democrats’ claim that African-Americans were not persons for their own convenient reasons.

        This very argument alone verifies and confirms that the Democrats have never “switched”. They simply have a new target for their non-personhood claims. A target that can’t vote.

        No Israeli-Palestinian war? Israel is not waging Jihad, they are defending themselves against Jihad by the Palestinians. For you to equate their self-defense with Jihad is equivalent to the bully complaining to the teacher: “He hit me!”

        “Palestinian” was a word that originally described anyone living in Palestine–Muslim, Christian OR Jew. No Palestinian Muslim ever welcomed any Jew. Not any that still have their heads anyway…

        Israel has never attacked their friends and/or allies and you cannot possibly connive and contrive to try to say they have.

        NOW: This is where your entire continuum of posts are shown to be what they are…deception–

        I had stated “You have gone to your own extremes to show that the Bible demands that Israel wage Jihad against the U.S.”

        From your most recent post “I never made any such claim, and I would dare you to quote where said they had to wage war on the U.S.”

        Here’s the quote you dared me to post:

        From your post on November 8, 2014 at 6: 51 pm, in response to my specific statement “You have got to go to your own extremes to show that the Bible demands that Israel wage Jihad against the U.S.:

        “According to the old testimate, which the jews follow, they are suposed too..”.

        All of the statements you have made, to include your migration and demographic views, your views of Israel, Judaism, the Bible Ot and NT, and the Jews–ethnic or religious, or both…stand on the very same foundation of rock-solid consistency as the statement I just dared to quote.

      • ““Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation…”

        That wasn’t from George Washington, it’s a quote from Hussein Obama.”

        Except Washington, Adams, Franklin and the others decleared it as well, through their own personal remarks and through the treaty of tripoli

        “Being “right-wing” does not make the KKK Republicans any more than being “liberal” makes the Democrats pro-liberty. But if you insist it does the best rationale for that statement is in the fact that the last recorded lynching was performed in 1981 by KKK Democrats.
        Haven’t been any since they “joined” the GOP”

        those are 2 completly disconnected statement, it is so idiotic I have no clue how to respond. Of course being right wing has being republican has nothing to do with liberals being pro-liberty, but it has everything to do with being left wing making you a democrat. Also you have no evidence that the last one was done by democrats, and joining the GOP does not make them less racist. That there are no more lynchings has more to do with the south not letting them go any longer, more than what party they belong to..
        .

        “Your rationale that Sarah Brown was not a person until the moment she was born is identical to the Democrats’ claim that African-Americans were not persons for their own convenient reasons.
        This very argument alone verifies and confirms that the Democrats have never “switched”. They simply have a new target for their non-personhood claims. A target that can’t vote”

        This whole statement is also stupid. Democrats, even in the peakk of their racism, always wanted blacks to be considered a person. It was the Republicans that did not want this, and the reason was not racism, was had everything to do with representation in the house of representatives, and it started with the founding fathers, you know Washington and them… The norht wanted them to count as no person and the south as a whole person. If you are going to try and use this as an argument you need to make sure you understand what you are taling about. And you cannot blame that on dems, which it is odd that you claim repbs were not around back then but dems were, unless you wanna argue some “migration” back then as well.

        “No Israeli-Palestinian war?”
        That was sarcasm as noted by the .. at the end of the sentence..

        “Israel is not waging Jihad, they are defending themselves against Jihad by the Palestinians. For you to equate their self-defense with Jihad is equivalent to the bully complaining to the teacher: “He hit me!””
        Israel started the battles, with the constant breaking of immigration rules, and expanding into the muslim areas. As for your false equivalency, in terms of today it is like a 5 year old hitting an 18 year old so the 18 year old gets a group of friends and they all go pound on the 5 year old. Isreal sees a missle launcher that does no damage to its people so they level a city block.

        ““Palestinian” was a word that originally described anyone living in Palestine–Muslim, Christian OR Jew. No Palestinian Muslim ever welcomed any Jew. Not any that still have their heads anyway…”
        Ahh, well they are all dead so none of them have their heads, so your last “qualification” is idiotic. You say none and then qualify it with something that includes all of them

        “Israel has never attacked their friends and/or allies and you cannot possibly connive and contrive to try to say they have.”
        I have already discussed them attacking and forcing the Palestinians out of their home, but even still there is one thing you forget, it was the Jews who were responsible for Jesus’ death, because he was going against their religion.

        Matthew 26:3-4 : “the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, assembled together to the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. And they consulted so that they might take Jesus by guile and kill Him.”

        “NOW: This is where your entire continuum of posts are shown to be what they are…deception–”
        “According to the old testament, which the jews follow, they are suposed too..”.

        Actually it is where I misspoke, and it is quote obvious what I meant. The Quran does not tell the Muslims to attack the USA any more than the Old testament tells the Jews to attack the USA. Both of them do tell their believers to attack the people of those countries that are not Jews.

      • Who ARE you trying to fool?! Is this the only way you can win a debate? Through trickery and deception?

        Where were the Republicans in 1787? The Democratic – Republican Party, to which both northerners and southerners belonged is heralded by today’s Democrats as being the forerunner of the current Democratic Party (the Party of Jefferson). Democrats were fighting with Democrats and had they considered African slaves to be persons at all there never would have been a question of representation.

        The migration you mentioned happened when many of them aligned with Andrew Jackson, giving birth to today’s Democratic Party. The insignificant rest of them vanished away into the oblivion of the Whigs.

        There were no Republicans to declare anyone 3/5 of a person. The only thing the Republicans ever did in that regard was to establish the 14th Amendment which granted full citizenship AND personhood to the former property of the Democrats.

        No wonder you think you can call us racists. You conveniently connect us with everything we were never connected with.

        You asked me to prove it was Democrats who performed the last recorded lynching…

        Clearly reported by that bastion of the Tea Party, CBS News–per their affiliate in Tampa Bay – Sarasota: Channel 10 News…

        African-American Michael Donald was lynched in 1981 by members of the KKK who operated under the leadership of Grand Dragon of the United Klans of America…John Paul Rogers, who still campaigned as a Democrat as recently as 2011.

        “They hung him from a tree…”

        And there are no later lynchings on record, and no lynching EVER by Republicans.

        And Huumph!

        “…we are NO LONGER a Christian nation…” indicates that Hussein Obama recognized that we had been. Not as government policy–no one is saying that–but as Hussein meant it to be: culturally.

        From George Washington: Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on June 12th, 1779…

        “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”…

        …As recorded in George Washington, the Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington D.C.:, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55. OI-270.

        As to the Jews’ attack against Jesus, Jesus wasn’t there “friend”. I stated that the Jews never attacked their “friends”. Jesus was one of them, and he was no “friend” of the Jewish religious hierarchy–the folks who had him crucified.

        I never said “no Jew has ever made a mistake”. I said that the Bible, unlike the Quran, does not tell them to wage Jihad against their own allies. Islamists who live in the U.S actually attack their own country. Kind of like non-Christian poster-boy for false Democratic accusations–Timothy McVeigh.

        Now here’s an interesting angle to your clearly anything-but-pro-Israel statements…

        If Senator Trent Lott, or President George W. Bush…or Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock or Strom Thurmond…had ever said “Blacks are trying to WIPE OUT a group of people who offered to help them”, and “Blacks took over the school board so they could WIPE OUT the education system there” and “Blacks started the battles”—

        The Democrats would have them fitted for sheets by noon the next day! With their cameras ready to roll. How would CNN cover such an event?…”Good evening America, stunning new racist statements by the Republican Right headline our stories tonight…Chris Matthews is reporting live from KKK Headquarters in order to give America a direct view of just who the Republicans are…”

        But these are precisely your statements about Israel.

        “A missile launcher that does no damage”? So they leveled a city block?

        That’s all Israel needs: Palestinian missile launchers aimed at them in their own land. How well did the missile launcher work after everything was leveled?

        Could you Palestinians pretty please refrain from launching Scud missiles at us? And could you please not teach your little boys and girls to blow themselves up at McDonald’s during the lunch hour rush?

      • “Who ARE you trying to fool?! Is this the only way you can win a debate? Through trickery and deception?”
        What trickery and deception

        “Where were the Republicans in 1787? The Democratic – Republican Party, to which both northerners and southerners belonged is heralded by today’s Democrats as being the forerunner of the current Democratic Party (the Party of Jefferson). Democrats were fighting with Democrats and had they considered African slaves to be persons at all there never would have been a question of representation.”
        So you are saying there were or were not democrats and republicans? I am getting confused by your flip flopping. Your earlier statement dated november 8 at 2:28 said

        “Now please help me to understand how the Republicans existed in 1776 when they weren’t founded until 1854.” Bill Hedlund

        “The migration you mentioned happened when many of them aligned with Andrew Jackson, giving birth to today’s Democratic Party. The insignificant rest of them vanished away into the oblivion of the Whigs.”
        Citation please

        “There were no Republicans to declare anyone 3/5 of a person. The only thing the Republicans ever did in that regard was to establish the 14th Amendment which granted full citizenship AND personhood to the former property of the Democrats.”
        It was actually Madison, who was of the Democratic Republicans who offered the idea of the 3/5 compromise

        “No wonder you think you can call us racists. You conveniently connect us with everything we were never connected with.”
        A statement you cannot prove

        You asked me to prove it was Democrats who performed the last recorded lynching…

        “Clearly reported by that bastion of the Tea Party, CBS News–per their affiliate in Tampa Bay – Sarasota: Channel 10 News…

        African-American Michael Donald was lynched in 1981 by members of the KKK who operated under the leadership of Grand Dragon of the United Klans of America…John Paul Rogers, who still campaigned as a Democrat as recently as 2011.

        “They hung him from a tree…””

        Was he there? Was he prosecuted for the crime, any evidence to back up your claim?

        “And there are no later lynchings on record, and no lynching EVER by Republicans.

        And Huumph!”

        On record huh, I guess James Byrd Jr does not count in 1998…

        ““…we are NO LONGER a Christian nation…” indicates that Hussein Obama recognized that we had been. Not as government policy–no one is saying that–but as Hussein meant it to be: culturally.”

        Now you mean culturally, not nationally. Again flip flopping

        “From George Washington: Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on June 12th, 1779…

        “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”…

        …As recorded in George Washington, the Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington D.C.:, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55. OI-270.”

        Washington was free to proselytize. It does not mean he though we were a Christian nation

        “As to the Jews’ attack against Jesus, Jesus wasn’t there “friend”. I stated that the Jews never attacked their “friends”. Jesus was one of them, and he was no “friend” of the Jewish religious hierarchy–the folks who had him crucified.

        I never said “no Jew has ever made a mistake”. I said that the Bible, unlike the Quran, does not tell them to wage Jihad against their own allies.”
        Hmm, I always was told Jesus was a friend to all…

        ” Islamists who live in the U.S actually attack their own country. Kind of like non-Christian poster-boy for false Democratic accusations–Timothy McVeigh.”
        Which Islamist would that be?

        “Now here’s an interesting angle to your clearly anything-but-pro-Israel statements…

        If Senator Trent Lott, or President George W. Bush…or Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock or Strom Thurmond…had ever said “Blacks are trying to WIPE OUT a group of people who offered to help them”, and “Blacks took over the school board so they could WIPE OUT the education system there” and “Blacks started the battles”—

        The Democrats would have them fitted for sheets by noon the next day! With their cameras ready to roll. How would CNN cover such an event?…”Good evening America, stunning new racist statements by the Republican Right headline our stories tonight…Chris Matthews is reporting live from KKK Headquarters in order to give America a direct view of just who the Republicans are…””

        Yes they would, and rightly, if he said that. However notice I did not say that. I said :

        “SOME of them are doing similar things financially such in up state new york where they took over the school board, even though they have no kids in the schools, so they could wipe out the education system there.”

        Notice the quantification of SOME. That makes a big difference. It makes it a statement of fact, limiting it to a subset of the group, and not an over generalization fallacy, such as what your statement was.

        “But these are precisely your statements about Israel.”

        No, I never said ALL, I said SOME….

        ““A missile launcher that does no damage”? So they leveled a city block?

        That’s all Israel needs: Palestinian missile launchers aimed at them in their own land. How well did the missile launcher work after everything was leveled?”

        So the US has lots of missile launchers aimed at people, does that give those people a right to attack us?

        “Could you Palestinians pretty please refrain from launching Scud missiles at us? And could you please not teach your little boys and girls to blow themselves up at McDonald’s during the lunch hour rush?”

        How about instead you destroy the missile launcher without killing the innocents in the area, oh thats right you dont consider any Muslims, including the children innocent, even though they ahve the nearly exact same wording in their book as the Jews do.

      • Why do I need to prove anything when you prove it daily yourself?

        Yes, Madison was a Southerner (from Virginia) and a member of Jefferson’s Democratic – Republican Party. The “Republican” label in no way applied to the current Republicans, as I have said–Jefferson’s Democratic – Republicans moved into Jackson’s Democratic Party. It was a merger.

        From Encyclopedia Britannica:

        “Democratic – Republican Party, originally Republican Party (1792 – 1798), first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. IT WAS THE DIRECT ANTECENDENT OF THE PRESENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY.”

        You need to take your arguments off of this forum and debate directly with the “citation” you asked for.

        From the British Dictionary…

        Definition of “lynch”

        1) (transitive) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial.

        From Bing Dictionary…

        Definition of lynch

        1) murder for supposed crime: to seize somebody believed to have committed a crime and put him or her to death immediately and without trial, usually by hanging.

        From Merriam Webster…

        : To kill (someone) illegally as punishment for a crime.

        James Byrd was not lynched, he was murdered. He had not been accused of any crime, he was murdered in cold blood just for being Black.

        “Was he there?” Manson wasn’t even “there” when Sharon Tate was killed on his orders.

        “Was he there?” Who, Hitler? Was he there when Anne Frank was murdered?

        “Was he there?” He said “I don’t know of any act of any violence that was sanctioned by our organization, either national or in Florida.”

        Yet his organization, which he headed up, was successfully sued by Michael Donald’s parents. The jury awarded them six million dollars.

        “Was he there? He was their boss. Your very own rationale “Was he there” exonerates in and of itself the vast majority of the KKK (who gave aid and comfort and aided and abetted those doing their bidding), but WERE NOT THERE during any lynching that has ever happened. In fact, every Republican you have accused of carrying on the Democrats’ racist activities would be happy to hear you exonerate them–“They weren’t there”:

        You would be right for once, they weren’t there, and as opposed to Democrat John Paul Rogers, they were there neither in body NOR spirit.

        You are debating with non-facts. You are coming unglued. Murder happens everywhere, for many reasons including racism. Lynching has been almost exclusively a Klan action, and while lynching is murder…murder is not always lynching, as your statement implies–intentionally or not.

        The U.S. has missile launchers aimed at those who have threatened us.

        The majority of civilians killed in Israeli airstrikes have been intentionally placed in harm’s way by the very military personnel they were aiming for.

        And which of us pray tell, supports the non-person status and killing of unborn Muslim children?

        And from November 12th at 4: 18 pm

        “Who knows, probably because the Jews (the Jews), as a heritage, have been beaten to death by others, wanting to wipe them out, that THEY (the Jews, not SOME of the Jews) have retreated to an area and decided to wipe out a group of people who offered to help them when they arrived in the area. They (the Jews) don’t time to deal with the rest of us (that’s us too) because (only) of their size. SOME of them are doing similar things financially…”

        Your use of the word SOME is obviously meant not to imply that only SOME are committing acts of Jihad, but that in fact SOME have found a unique way to do it at the level of the education system.

        Who DO you think you are fooling?

      • “Yes, Madison was a Southerner (from Virginia) and a member of Jefferson’s Democratic – Republican Party. The “Republican” label in no way applied to the current Republicans, as I have said–Jefferson’s Democratic – Republicans moved into Jackson’s Democratic Party. It was a merger.”

        this is so funny.. Lets look at things.

        Thomas Jefferson on Slavery:

        “Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.”

        Madison on slavery:

        “Surviving letters from Madison’s retirement present an ex-president who was deeply conflicted over the institution of slavery. Madison struggled over how best to eradicate slavery from his plantation and from the rest of the country. A visitor to Montpelier in 1835 noted that “with regard to slavery [Madison] owned himself almost to be in despair,” that he “talked more on the subject of slavery than on any other, acknowledging, without limitation or hesitation, all the evils with which it has ever been charged.” On the one hand Madison felt that “the magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged: that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.” On the other hand, Madison was adamant that emancipation ought to be “gradual, equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned, and consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation.””

        So the founders of the democratic party were both morally outraged by slavery… they were so bad that..

        They were so bad that the founders of the republican party actually based their party off their ideals of “republicanism”

        Sounds like you directly correlated the suposed change…

        “James Byrd was not lynched, he was murdered. He had not been accused of any crime, he was murdered in cold blood just for being Black.”

        I love it when people use one of a couple definitions, and assume the other definitions were not there…
        lynch verb \ˈlinch\
        : to kill (someone) illegally as punishment for a crime
        transitive verb
        : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction

        So we have 2 definitions, one requires punishment for a crime, the other just requires it without legal sations, which means without being found guilty of something and orderd punishment. In fact the person you stated as lynched, Micheal Donald was also not charged with a crime. He was chosen at random as punishment for a seperate black man being acquitted…

        “Yet his organization, which he headed up, was successfully sued by Michael Donald’s parents. The jury awarded them six million dollars.”

        The Burden of proof in civil lawsuits is not beyond reasonable doubt. That they awarded them anything does not prove anything.

        ““Was he there? He was their boss. Your very own rationale “Was he there” exonerates in and of itself the vast majority of the KKK (who gave aid and comfort and aided and abetted those doing their bidding), but WERE NOT THERE during any lynching that has ever happened. In fact, every Republican you have accused of carrying on the Democrats’ racist activities would be happy to hear you exonerate them–”They weren’t there”:”

        WTF are you talking about…

        “You are debating with non-facts. You are coming unglued. Murder happens everywhere, for many reasons including racism. Lynching has been almost exclusively a Klan action, and while lynching is murder…murder is not always lynching, as your statement implies–intentionally or not.” Lynching has multiple meanings, yet you only assume one.

        “The U.S. has missile launchers aimed at those who have threatened us.”

        No they have aimed at anyone who MAY be a threat.

        “The majority of civilians killed in Israeli airstrikes have been intentionally placed in harm’s way by the very military personnel they were aiming for.”

        And that excuses it? If a gunman holds a hostage in front of him is the police officer justified in killing the hostages?

        “And which of us pray tell, supports the non-person status and killing of unborn Muslim children?”
        Neither..

        And from November 12th at 4: 18 pm

        ““Who knows, probably because the Jews (the Jews), as a heritage, have been beaten to death by others, wanting to wipe them out, that THEY (the Jews, not SOME of the Jews) have retreated to an area and decided to wipe out a group of people who offered to help them when they arrived in the area. They (the Jews) don’t time to deal with the rest of us (that’s us too) because (only) of their size. SOME of them are doing similar things financially…”

        Your use of the word SOME is obviously meant not to imply that only SOME are committing acts of Jihad, but that in fact SOME have found a unique way to do it at the level of the education system.”

        Reread the paragraph. It was pondering on why they are not all agressive in response to your question as to why they are not all agressive, identified by the “who knows” The some was definantly talking about only some are actually doing those things.

        I am not trying to fool anyone, but I think you are fooling yourself.

      • You’ve come a long way on these posts. From declaring the Republicans to have “switched places” with the Democrats, which you later had to admit only meant they opposed certain (unconstitutional) measures that had nothing in hell to do with hatred of their color, to siding with the malicious lies against Israel (the Klan is holding hands with you on that)…to finally–and even I never expected this!–finally you are defending the Klan itself, just as if you were their attorney, on charges of aiding and abetting a lynching of a black man, never minding that they were found accountable by a civil jury.

        Switching parties is like musical chairs…only you never got up.

        There is no question that the Palestinian Islamic organization Hamas has used civilians as human shields and sent children out as suicide bombers. Hamas has routinely blended their soldiers with their civilians and blamed Israel for the deaths of these civilians…all the while Palestinian terrorists intentionally target children in Israel. Like the school bus that was blown up.

        Again, the KKK is on your side in this issue.

        Furthermore and furthermore…

        So now slavery was “Republicanism”. This is a reach and a stretch I would have thought to be beneath anything you would contrive. Never mind that Republicanism and Democracy are ways of doing government, both of which are values of America today and neither of which have any fundamental connection to slavery.

        …Now the 3/5 of a person idea was a “Republican” idea, and wasn’t based on a true belief of the lesser personhood of African slaves at all…

        From cebowen, dated November 13, 2014 at 5: 47 am:

        “Democrats, even in the peak of their racism, always wanted blacks to be considered a person. It was the Republicans that did not want this, and the reason was not racism, was had everything to do with representation in the house of representatives, and (AND) it started with the founding fathers, you know Washington and them…”

        Back up to post from cebowen, dated November 6, 2014 at 5: 18 pm:

        …commenting on the Declaration of Independence statement that “All men are created equal”…

        “Blacks were not considered men at the time, but I’m sure you knew that.”

        The Declaration of course, was adopted in 1776, 11 years before the Three Fifths Compromise of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

        I’m sure you knew that.

        But let’s tie these two arguments together. You claim that Michael Donald’s lynching was not the last lynching and in fact wasn’t a real lynching at all, never mind that Donald was killed for someone else’s alleged crime…thoroughly consistent with the definition of “lynch”.

        The whole point here, which you want and need desperately to sweep under the rug is that Michael Donald was the last African-American to be murdered in lynch-fashion by the KKK, and that the particular KKK division responsible (United Klans of America) was headed up by a Democrat who was still campaigning as a Democrat as recently as 2011.

        Moving the idea forward—

        Oxford Dictionary in fact considers the word “kill” to be a synonym of “lynch”.

        Actually, I have no problem with this concept as I find the murder of James Byrd to be even more atrocious than that of Michael Donald…in fact possibly exceeded by only Sandy Hook. His killers however, were not members of the KKK albeit they wanted to be. And no evidence they were Republicans.

        So if “kill” is the same as “lynch” then your support of Dr. George Killer’s right to kill Sarah Brown is no different from the KKK’s support of the lynching of Michael Donald…AND James Byrd.

        No problem here–no “person” involved per the Democrats.

        (And of course, the parallel of the two cases in no way hinges on this crude and ridiculous interpretation of the word “lynch”.)

      • “You’ve come a long way on these posts. From declaring the Republicans to have “switched places” with the Democrats, which you later had to admit only meant they opposed certain (unconstitutional) measures that had nothing in hell to do with hatred of their color,”
        I have made no such “admission” I stated it there is no slavery issue anymore, but the Republicans are still the party of “hey look at that thug over there” ever time a black person is in the news.
        “to siding with the malicious lies against Israel (the Klan is holding hands with you on that)”
        I never made a single lie against Israel. Every thing I states is factually and historically accurate. I do not in any way hate nor love Isreal, just like I in no way hate or love Christians. I judge people based on their character and I treate everyone by default with respect even when they put words into my mouth.
        “…to finally–and even I never expected this!–finally you are defending the Klan itself, just as if you were their attorney, on charges of aiding and abetting a lynching of a black man, never minding that they were found accountable by a civil jury.”
        I never defended the Klan or their actions. You have an issue in that you cannot seperate pointing out flaws in your argument with showing of support. Things are not mutually exclusive. I can point out your flaws of arguing a Klans is part of a murder that you have no evidence to support with out supporting the klan in their acctions.

        “Switching parties is like musical chairs…only you never got up.”

        Funny, but not very accurate..

        “There is no question that the Palestinian Islamic organization Hamas has used civilians as human shields and sent children out as suicide bombers. Hamas has routinely blended their soldiers with their civilians and blamed Israel for the deaths of these civilians…all the while Palestinian terrorists intentionally target children in Israel. Like the school bus that was blown up.”

        So again I will ask you, is it ok for a cop to shoot a hostage so the cop can get the guy who took the person hostage?

        “Again, the KKK is on your side in this issue.”

        I am sure the kkk likes brocolii as well, does that mean I should not either? In fact I am pretty sure the kkk is not on my side in this since they hate muslims just as much, if not more, than they hate jews.

        “So now slavery was “Republicanism”. This is a reach and a stretch I would have thought to be beneath anything you would contrive. Never mind that Republicanism and Democracy are ways of doing government, both of which are values of America today and neither of which have any fundamental connection to slavery.”

        Again you put words into my mouth. I never once said slavery was Republican. It seems the only way you can win an argument is to change the argument to fit your needs even though words never never stated.

        “…Now the 3/5 of a person idea was a “Republican” idea, and wasn’t based on a true belief of the lesser personhood of African slaves at all…”
        Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

        From cebowen, dated November 13, 2014 at 5: 47 am:

        ““Democrats, even in the peak of their racism, always wanted blacks to be considered a person. It was the Republicans that did not want this, and the reason was not racism, was had everything to do with representation in the house of representatives, and (AND) it started with the founding fathers, you know Washington and them…”

        Back up to post from cebowen, dated November 6, 2014 at 5: 18 pm:

        …commenting on the Declaration of Independence statement that “All men are created equal”…

        “Blacks were not considered men at the time, but I’m sure you knew that.””
        There is a differnce between a person and a man, especially to the founders…. But I assume you know that. A person could be a woman, or a child, or a man. And not all of them were considered equal in the founders eyes, only white men, escpecially those who owned land, were allowed to vote originally…But keep up your strawment..

        “The Declaration of course, was adopted in 1776, 11 years before the Three Fifths Compromise of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.”

        The DoI has no legal bearing on the US. It is a Declaration, not a governing document….We have gone over this.

        From USA.gov:

        Declaration of Independence (1776) – Drafted by Thomas Jefferson in June 1776, this document is the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty. It set forth a list of grievances against the King of England in order to justify breaking the ties between the colonies and the mother country.
        Constitution of the United States (1787) – This four-page document, signed on September 17, 1787, established the government of the United States.

        The first issues why we broke ties, the second is what states how we are governed.

        “But let’s tie these two arguments together. You claim that Michael Donald’s lynching was not the last lynching and in fact wasn’t a real lynching at all, never mind that Donald was killed for someone else’s alleged crime…thoroughly consistent with the definition of “lynch”.”
        I made no such claim. I stated Donald was not the last lynching beause there was another lynching later, of Byrd Jr..Try to keep up.

        “The whole point here, which you want and need desperately to sweep under the rug is that Michael Donald was the last African-American to be murdered in lynch-fashion by the KKK, and that the particular KKK division responsible (United Klans of America) was headed up by a Democrat who was still campaigning as a Democrat as recently as 2011.”

        You have no evidence to support that Byrd Jr was killed in a lynch fashion in an area with very heavy KKK activity. To assume these guys were not klansmen, since we have no list of members, is folly…

        Moving the idea forward—

        “Oxford Dictionary in fact considers the word “kill” to be a synonym of “lynch”.”

        I see no such synonym:

        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english-thesaurus/kill

        In fact it is to kill ILLEGALLY by mob

        “Actually, I have no problem with this concept as I find the murder of James Byrd to be even more atrocious than that of Michael Donald…in fact possibly exceeded by only Sandy Hook. His killers however, were not members of the KKK albeit they wanted to be. And no evidence they were Republicans.”

        So you state no evidence that they were republicans, but they were 100% not kkk members, even though in that area you have a massive concentration of both.

        “So if “kill” is the same as “lynch” then your support of Dr. George Killer’s right to kill Sarah Brown is no different from the KKK’s support of the lynching of Michael Donald…AND James Byrd.”
        abortion is legal, therefore it cannot be a “lynching”

        (And of course, the parallel of the two cases in no way hinges on this crude and ridiculous interpretation of the word “lynch”.)” Lynching is to kill by mob outside the law, there is nothing absurd about that definition.

      • So you provide a link to synonyms of “kill”. Clever (cleverness–not truthfulness– being the cornerstone of your arguments). Go to the top of the page and click on dictionary, then enter “lynch”, not “kill”… click on synonyms–and you’ll see it: execute illegally, hang, KILL. It’s there.

        I’m only pointing out the absurdity of twisting definitions to suit your liking, Donald having been lynched for someone else’s alleged crime while Byrd was the victim of a pure hate crime. As I said earlier “…this crude and ridiculous interpretation of the word “lynch”. Byrd wasn’t hanged either.

        So here you are supposedly battling against the “racist” Republican Party, yet David Duke is obviously ghostwriting your posts…oh, excuse me…

        Oh please excayooooze ME!…

        …What’s this? David Duke is supporting the candidacy of BLACK DEMOCRAT New York City politician Charles Barron (I’m sorry, they didn’t say what office he’s running for and I’m laughing too hard to google it up…Grand Wizard of the Democratic Party probably).

        Continuing if I can…Duke stated “I certainly agree with Barron that Israel is the worst rogue, terrorist state on earth”!!!

        So much for the Klan hating Muslims as much as they hate Jews.

        I can’t stand it. I don’t even have the strength left to go back again and teach you again and again that the governing document and the founding document are two different documents. And why bother…you just get an “F” in that course. Go back to summer school. I thought you always got 100%.

        Now there was something about how cops can’t intentionally kill hostages. Israel didn’t intentionally kill any Palestinian civilians. The web is full of statements from Israel’s Defense folks that confirm they had encountered human shields when fighting Hamas. And they didn’t just gun them down, they avoided killing civilians when they knew they were present…it’s just that Hamas doesn’t warn Israel ahead of time when they’ve stuffed a military target with children.

        “Hey ceeby, Dukers here…tell them Israel just lies.”

        “In fact the person ‘you stated as lynched’. Michael Donald was also not charged with a crime”…sure sounds to me like you don’t think he was lynched, or more likely that you just want to cast doubt on his “lynching”.

        How different your posts would be if Trent Lott had been wearing John Paul Rogers’ sheet.

        One thing is certain and that is that you try to tie Byrd’s murder to the Klan AND to the Republicans while attempting to exonerate the Klan AND the Democrats for an action that they were found IN COURT to be responsible for.

        What court found the Klan responsible for Byrd’s murder, hmmm? Only the Court of Your False Innuendo.

  42. Your statements “cannot be fallacies”?? By whose definition?…oh yeah, your own. Well, MY statements are etched in National Monuments of granite.

    Where on earth are the Muslims who think the Quran is extreme? Some Muslims…do they still have their heads?

    “Reagan won the country with 90% of the vote”. And you don’t think that reflects anyone’s “political leanings”. But you do know that whatever Southern Republicans voted for him are Confederates at heart. And when many of the same southerners voted for Clinton they had become Northern Democrats at heart.

    Sounds like you are being conveniently creative.

    About the only thing you seem to have straight is that the Northern Democrats voted for Southern Democrat Bill Clinton and his Southern Democrat VP Al Legore, while the majority of Republicans didn’t.

    The migrations do not “show nothing”. The migrations effectively disconnect any connection of the demographics of the South today with the demographics of the South yesterday.

    The link you posted showed nothing.

    A First Amendment lesson: You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten the president, and you cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy.

    As for Israel, the Old Testament punishment for adultery was death. And the children referred to were adult offspring, not 4-year olds.

    The Rosenburgs were executed in the U.S. for espionage, or adultery against the U.S.

    And Israel is not waging a Jihad against the U.S. …their Bible doesn’t command it.

    The Bible says the world was created in 6 days. That’s a period that I placed after the word “days”.

    “I will instill terror”ism, and “smite ye above their necks” are statements of Jihad against those who disagree with Islam.

    You know what quotation marks mean, right? Quotation marks around the word “progressives” imply sarcasm in the word. I thought you said the Declaration abolished slavery, and technically it did. As you suggest, why would anyone who supported slavery want to form a country on the basis of said Declaration? So, it follows that anyone who wanted to establish slavery in the Constitution was “progressive”. And the Democrats still call themselves “progressives”.

    By the way, was Sarah Brown actually less than 3/5 of a person?

    And excuse me History Professor, but Hong Kong didn’t “sever ties” with Britain. Hong Kong’s colony status ended when Britain agreed to the demands of Communist China to turn Hong Kong back over to the Communist Chinese government!

    Would to God the residents of Hong Kong had a Declaration like ours.

    Now how do “states rights” harm blacks?

    If my “migration theory were true” Democrats would be the party of states rights?…hmmmm. Say what? I don’t know how you get that, but thanks for acknowledging that the Democrats aren’t anything but pro massive Centralized Federal Government Power. No wonder they hate the Bill of Rights…is there any amendment there that the Democrats haven’t opposed? 1st? 2nd? 13th? 14th? 15th?

    How does opposition to forced busing harm black children? Are you implying that black teachers in black schools are too stupid to teach children how to read, write, and count?

    How is opposition to forced busing tantamount to the murders of the four Birmingham schoolgirls? Regardless of how the killer may or may not have felt about the issue.

    I can tell you (having driven deseg routes myself), that spending hours on a bus is detrimental to any child’s scholastic progress. I drove children from one end of a large northwestern city to the other. Every day. When they should have been long home having dinner and studying. Black and white. Trying to study on a bus would make a lot of children car sick…although they certainly had enough time on the bus to get any amount of homework done.

    And never mind the sleep deprivation.

    Yeah, opposing forced busing is the same as blowing up black schools. Those nasty Republicans!

    And your attempt to show that Republicans only oppose welfare for blacks but not for whites should be beneath even you. You haven’t got a shred of evidence to back that up. Not one single shred. What on earth do vices like smoking and drinking have anything at all to do with proving Republicans hate the color black? Good Grief.

    Slavery “was ‘moral’ at the time”?! Sounds like a Democratic response to me…are you sure you’re “Independent”?

    And I do realize that Northern Democrats elected Southern Baptist Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. What part of that do you think I don’t know?

    I’m not, nor have I ever been, a Southern Baptist. The Bible does not advocate the involuntary servitude of African citizens. The Old Testament stated rules for bondservants, those who performed labor for a period of time for payment. And the enslavement of captured warriors who had fought against Israel was approved, as it should be here…after the water-boarding.

    I am surprised however, at your honesty in admitting that you and Clinton would have had slaves. Bingo!

    but you see…I’m a republican…we opposed slavery see…even then.

    1776 to 1789. The United States had been an established independent nation during those years…with no Constitution, History Professor. They had, like we have today, the Declaration of Independence…and the useless Articles of Confederation.

    And the fact that slavery existed during those years was due to a flagrant disregard of the Rights established by the Declaration that had already begun and resulted in slavery becoming law. See what happens when there are no Republicans?

    The Constitution, as any Democrat will agree…is the LAW of the land. It is only the law. It does not establish the U.S. as a nation. This had already been done in 1776 by the Declaration.

    Introduction

    In CONGRESS, July 4th, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,…

    • “Your statements “cannot be fallacies”?? By whose definition?…oh yeah, your own. Well, MY statements are etched in National Monuments of granite.”
      Strawman fallacy. I never stated my statements could not be fallacies, you are putting words into my mouth again. I am however trained to recognize fallacies.

      “Where on earth are the Muslims who think the Quran is extreme? Some Muslims…do they still have their heads?”
      A lot feel that some parts of it are extreme…

      ““Reagan won the country with 90% of the vote”. And you don’t think that reflects anyone’s “political leanings”. But you do know that whatever Southern Republicans voted for him are Confederates at heart. And when many of the same southerners voted for Clinton they had become Northern Democrats at heart.

      Sounds like you are being conveniently creative.”

      I never stated anyone who voted for him was condederates at heart, you cannot keep from insterting words into my mouth can you?

      “About the only thing you seem to have straight is that the Northern Democrats voted for Southern Democrat Bill Clinton and his Southern Democrat VP Al Legore, while the majority of Republicans didn’t.”

      Actually I have pretty much everything straight

      “The migrations do not “show nothing”. The migrations effectively disconnect any connection of the demographics of the South today with the demographics of the South yesterday.”
      You made a statement now prove it.. Here is a simple exercise

      You have $40 in quarters and $1 bills. someone gives you $10 in quarters and $1 bills, how many quarters and $1 bills do you have?

      shoot your your entire premise is faulty with the pew research. You cannot even prove your statement that 19m northerns came to the south and 13m southerns left. You cannot add up each of the time frames like that, because you dont know anything about the demographics you dont know who may have came here during one time period and left during another time period, such as the 500k blacks that left during the start of the time period and came back in the early 2000s.

      “The link you posted showed nothing.”

      Then maybe you should check your browser, because it shows who voted for people during what time frames, throughout history

      “A First Amendment lesson: You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, you cannot threaten the president, and you cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy.”

      And who is doing any of those things, oh right no one….

      “As for Israel, the Old Testament punishment for adultery was death. And the children referred to were adult offspring, not 4-year olds.” And your point is? The question was do those jews that dont believe in those things, are they no longer jews?

      “The Rosenburgs were executed in the U.S. for espionage, or adultery against the U.S.” Which is it, espionge, or adultery. Not sure how you can commit adultery against the USA, since the only definition for it is sexual intercourse between a married person and and a person who is not their spouse.

      “And Israel is not waging a Jihad against the U.S. …their Bible doesn’t command it.”
      Actually it does.

      “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

      “The Bible says the world was created in 6 days. That’s a period that I placed after the word “days”.”
      And not all christians believe it was litterally 6 days. That does not make them non Christians…

      ““I will instill terror”ism, and “smite ye above their necks” are statements of Jihad against those who disagree with Islam.”
      “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.””
      And this is what the old testimate says about people who dont believe with it….

      “You know what quotation marks mean, right? Quotation marks around the word “progressives” imply sarcasm in the word. I thought you said the Declaration abolished slavery, and technically it did. As you suggest, why would anyone who supported slavery want to form a country on the basis of said Declaration? So, it follows that anyone who wanted to establish slavery in the Constitution was “progressive”. And the Democrats still call themselves “progressives”.”
      No, it did not. Again it only addressed men, and in the colonies blacks men were not considered men. Even afte the consitution they were not considered whole men, 3/5 of one to be exact.

      “By the way, was Sarah Brown actually less than 3/5 of a person?”
      This makes no sense. technically as a featus she was not a person by definition, because at the very least it is not an indicuidual, which is is a requirement. It is an attachment of the mother.

      “And excuse me History Professor, but Hong Kong didn’t “sever ties” with Britain. Hong Kong’s colony status ended when Britain agreed to the demands of Communist China to turn Hong Kong back over to the Communist Chinese government!”
      Which did what, oh, yea, it severd the ties……

      “Would to God the residents of Hong Kong had a Declaration like ours.”
      No, the declaration does nothing for us, only the constituions.

      “Now how do “states rights” harm blacks?”
      Now? Nothing, never stated it did, you just cannot keep from putting words into my mouth….

      “If my “migration theory were true” Democrats would be the party of states rights?…hmmmm. Say what?”
      Umm, dems in the old south were the party of states rights, therefore if all the southern dems moved north to become northern dems , and nothern repubs (federalists) moved south then the republican would be big government, and the dems would be states rigths.

      “I don’t know how you get that, but thanks for acknowledging that the Democrats aren’t anything but pro massive Centralized Federal Government Power.”
      I kow you cannot understand logic, but you are still putting words into my mouth, I never acknowledged aby such thing.

      ” No wonder they hate the Bill of Rights…is there any amendment there that the Democrats haven’t opposed? 1st? 2nd? 13th? 14th? 15th?””

      Prove that they opposed any…, I will not hold my breath…

      “How does opposition to forced busing harm black children?”
      I already explained it…
      ” Are you implying that black teachers in black schools are too stupid to teach children how to read, write, and count?””

      No, I am saying that blacks schools did not have the same amount of money, threfore could not hire the same level of teachers, the same quality of text books, the same facilities. that definitly harms the children they are tasked with teaching..

      “How is opposition to forced busing tantamount to the murders of the four Birmingham schoolgirls?”
      Where did anyone say that, you keep on with fallacies…

      “I can tell you (having driven deseg routes myself), that spending hours on a bus is detrimental to any child’s scholastic progress. I drove children from one end of a large northwestern city to the other. Every day. When they should have been long home having dinner and studying. Black and white. Trying to study on a bus would make a lot of children car sick…although they certainly had enough time on the bus to get any amount of homework done.”
      Then prove that it is detrimental..or your statement is just antedotal.

      “Yeah, opposing forced busing is the same as blowing up black schools. Those nasty Republicans!”
      Strawman fallacy.

      “And your attempt to show that Republicans only oppose welfare for blacks but not for whites should be beneath even you. You haven’t got a shred of evidence to back that up. Not one single shred. What on earth do vices like smoking and drinking have anything at all to do with proving Republicans hate the color black? Good Grief.”
      I never said they only oppose welfare for blacks. Your reading comprehension sucks. I said they oppose things that are majority black due to some percieved , but not validated slights, such as “had rims that cost more than my car”

      “Slavery “was ‘moral’ at the time”?! Sounds like a Democratic response to me…are you sure you’re “Independent”?”

      “Slavery was considered moral at the time, it is a fact. I did not say I found it moral, like you are implying I stated…”

      “And I do realize that Northern Democrats elected Southern Baptist Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. What part of that do you think I don’t know?”

      So did apparently a lot of your northern and southern republicans, but hey, you seem to look over that.

      I’m not, nor have I ever been, a Southern Baptist. The Bible does not advocate the involuntary servitude of African citizens. The Old Testament stated rules for bondservants, those who performed labor for a period of time for payment. And the enslavement of captured warriors who had fought against Israel was approved, as it should be here…after the water-boarding.

      I am surprised however, at your honesty in admitting that you and Clinton would have had slaves. Bingo!
      I said he MAY have, and you may have hd as well….

      “but you see…I’m a republican…we opposed slavery see…even then.”

      Wait, you were alive in the 1700s, or early 1800s? you cannot know what you would have been opposed to if you were not born…Negative existentials cannot be proven…

      “1776 to 1789. The United States had been an established independent nation during those years…with no Constitution, History Professor. They had, like we have today, the Declaration of Independence…and the useless Articles of Confederation.”
      The articles of the confederation was the only thing that tied them together, and was considered so week, because it allowed a group of independant states, and not a nation that they needed the consitution. The DoI did nothing. you can have a DoI and then everyone go their seperate ways. It had no power to govern.

      “And the fact that slavery existed during those years was due to a flagrant disregard of the Rights established by the Declaration that had already begun and resulted in slavery becoming law. See what happens when there are no Republicans?”

      There were republicans at the time, but does not matter. Slaves were not considered people, they were property. Threfore the DoI did nothing for them. you are using rational for today, and applying it to the past, you cannot do it. You have to look at the way people rationed in the past.

      “The Constitution, as any Democrat will agree…is the LAW of the land. It is only the law. It does not establish the U.S. as a nation. This had already been done in 1776 by the Declaration.”

      It is not the only law, it is the document that all laws are derived from. It does establish the US as a nation, because it sets fort the way that the nation works, the DoI does none of that.

      “Introduction

      In CONGRESS, July 4th, 1776.

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,…”

      The 13..13…not 1, but 13. Not one nation, but 13 nation states.

      • Your entire post is a pathetic attempt to put your own words back in your mouth.

        No, of course you’re not implying that black teachers are too stupid to teach, only that they are not “the same level of teachers”, therefore black students can’t learn from them which is why they were bused away in the first place, which means they are too stupid to teach. So send the white kids there.

        Maybe just the Democratic white kids?

        “Where did anyone say that? You keep on with fallacies”. Who is it that is claiming the parties have switched?

        “I have not seen many Republicans that oppose welfare in general…it is almost always a racial thing”. How do those words taste? The only thing that sucks is you sucking the words back into your mouth.

        “There were Republicans at the time”.

        Now please help me to understand how the Republicans existed in 1776 when they weren’t founded until 1854.

        On and on and on…(if I seem to have missed something I didn’t miss it, just didn’t see anything that doesn’t adequately refute itself). Like the black teachers thing. Good Grief cebowen!

        And the new South isn’t the old South anymore, no matter how much you want to say it is. Just ask Obama. He won Virginia twice. Maybe Virginians figured he’d be the first slave-president, huh?

        I cannot know what I would have been opposed to? This is scary. You mean you cannot know and say that you wouldn’t have joined up with Hitler? Or that you wouldn’t be a mass murderer if it became convenient for you?

        Do you even know what you stand for today? Do you have a personal moral constitution that knows the difference between right and wrong? I remember being appalled the very first time I ever considered slavery. When I was about 6 or 7 years old.

        You on the other hand, don’t find slavery to be “moral”, but you could easily see yourself owning slaves.

        America is not enticing Israel to “go and serve other gods”. So the Bible isn’t telling Israel to wage Jihad against America.

        AND furthermore, the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament which tells Israel to preach the gospel to all nations, not destroy them. That is the goal of Christian Jews today.

        “Which did what, oh yeah, it severed the ties”. I don’t know how you can be so ignorant of what you are incredibly trying to say! The Declaration (I’ll try one more time)…the Declaration was an act of the residents of America in which THEY severed ties with Britain. The return of Hong Kong to China was an act of BRITAIN, not the residents of Hong Kong. The British not only severed the ties themselves, they signed the residents of Hong Kong over to another governing entity–China.

        How you find commonality with the Hong Kong circumstances and the Americans’ is beyond me, although the consistency with everything else you have said is right in line.

        You do not even know what an allegory is (espionage/adultery). The point you missed (or didn’t miss at all and you know it) was that unfaithfulness in both cases led to death. In the Old Testament and even in the U.S.

        And you have apparently never heard of the Continental Congress, which governed the United States of America prior to the Constitution.

        And you apparently don’t understand that in order to govern there has to be an established entity to govern. Entity comes first, then government of that entity.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

        The entity already existed and the entity established its own Constitution in order to specifically perfect the already existing and already governed Union.

        The Constitution is commonly called the “Law of the Land”. It didn’t ordain the existence of “the land” any more than a No Parking sign does. It is the legal code.

        “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America” says nothing about “nation states”. Unlike the United Nations which ARE nation states, the United States is “of America”. One nation.

        Definition of America:

        From Bing Dictionary…1) United States: the United States of America

        From Merriam-Webster… 3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        And Sarah Brown was not a person, not even 3/5 or 1/5 of a person.

        That’s why it was OK for Dr. George Killer to take it upon himself to stick a potassium-laced needle into he 0/5 of a person’s body. That’s why it was OK for her to live a life of suffering which culminated in her death at age five. That’s why it was OK to kill her. Because she wasn’t a person.

        You Democrats are still trying to tell us which persons are not persons. What’s changed? Where’s the “switched parties”?

        The more you guys switch, the more you remain the same.

  43. I almost forgot.

    Your uncle threatened to kill your aunt for marrying a black man? He was a southern racist Republican?

    I live in the northwest. My friend and another fellow went on a date with a couple of Hawaiian girls. They took the girls to my friends house to meet his folks.

    His dad, a staunch liberal NORTHERN Democrat, confronted my friend later…

    “Don’t bring any more…ahem…’African-Americans’…around here again!” he said, and yes he used that word.

  44. Well I did make a mistake in my calculations. If every one of the 14.8m left were dems and all 19.6m that came in were republicans, which you cannot prove at all, and could have been completely reversed, then it would mean that the massive democratic south would have had to been a simple plurality, not the overridden democratic strong hold it was. That again is assuming that it was all both ways, which we know it could not have been.

  45. …I’m sorry, I forgot about “marriage equality”. Doesn’t that come with the right to adopt children?

    There’s a difference between right and wrong. I wouldn’t ordinarily care whether or not you marry your dog, or the fence post, or the barn door. And if you want your name to decorate the now 54-ton AIDS Quilt, that’s your privilege too.

    But I’ll stand up for children’s rights to live in a normal family environment. Those the Democrats don’t abort.

    • Actually historians in GENERAL disagree with you, regardless of political affliction, shoot, regardless of nationality.

      You still have not addressed the points that the demographics have flipped almost exactly, as have the platform. You seem to want to skip that argument.

      Your “pew research”, which there is no citation for nor any google search that would come up, does not take into account the size of the south. If 13m people move, but there are 80m people there, and the south is majority democrat then the logical conclusion would be that the south would still be majority democrat. Even with the so called 19m coming in at best it would be close to even, IF it was not a strong hold for the democrats at that time period. Of course you give a 32 year history for this move which also fails to take into account birth rates and such. In short your supposed claim of evidence from pew is shorty, and a massive logical leap at best, and just plain idiotic and worse.

      Oh you mean the pastors who left the religion and started into politics. Do you really believe that pastors have a religious right to do anything in the name of religion and get off without any consequences? Murder maybe? If the pastors, who the city narrowed the scope by the way, want to get into other areas they have to realize that it comes with consequences.

      “Oh, I’m sorry…I guess you mean the rights of Islamic terrorists to build a shrine to Mohammad Atta at Ground Zero.”

      And see here you go again, creating a strawman, but you also at the same time pointed out one of the flaws of your argument. Someone who actually cared about the constitution would recognize that they have a first amendment right to do that, but republicans only care about freedom of religion it seems, if it is about Christianity. There is no freedom of religion for anyone else….

      “Or the right of Baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown to be aborted by Dr. George Tiller” …So you are fine with BIG government, again, when it does what you want it to do. Someone wants to end their life, screw that, we are better than they are, live your miserable life, or we make it even more miserable. Want to do drugs in your home where it harms no one else, WAIT a minute, we dont like drugs, unless it is booze and cigs, then you better not tell us what we can do with ourselves…but I digress. These children were not children at the time of their ATTEMPTED abortion..

      Here is the thing about abortion. You dont get to arbitrarily tell people what to do with their bodies, r arbitrarily define when life begins, or when something is a human being. If you really think that democrats just want to abort babies maybe you should rethink your argument.

      “Is opposition to forced busing racist?”
      Once again, a loaded question. It depends. Things in the world is rarely black and white, no pun intended. It being opposed to it on the grounds that you want a separate but equal state, then yes it is racist. If it is just on the ground of hating big government then no.

      Republicans used to be big government federalist during the civil rights and before, now they are states rights. Dems used to be states rights and now they are big government federalist. Please point out how that is wrong. Their age, location and income demographics have flipped flopped, and no your “pew study” does not explain it. Dems used to be the Chirstian party, not it is the republicans…

      Right and wrong is a relative statement. You are trying to define an absolute when there is not one, and that may be your biggest problem. You probably would have owned slaves, so would I have, if born rich into the south into a racist family, because morals are a relative thing, and no you cannot prove that you would not have, it is impossible. Same thing with your term “normal”. You dont get to define normal, it is a relative thing, that is constantly in motion.

      • Democratic historians of course, disagree with facts…(how does demonstrating that your points are wrong add up to not addressing your points?)

        At the website: Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends, December 17th, 2008. From Map: U. S. Migration Flows. Years 1975 to 2007 total.

        Into the South: 19,647,000

        Out of the South: 14,828,000

        That’s a transition of 34,475,000 out of your 80,000,000 total population.

        And if YOU take into account birth rates and such it is YOUR conclusions that are…would Democrat Al Gore say “idiotic”? Or just “That’s the extra-chromosome crowd for you”?

        No matter how you slice and dice those figures you can only come up with one conclusion: The racists and their Democratic Party have left, being replaced by pro-Civil Rights Republicans.

        As manifested by the thoroughly consistent transition of the South to a Republican stronghold.

        You can’t have it any other way cebowen. Your beloved and cherished Democrats are a bunch of still pro-slavery racists.

        And yes, pastors do realize that there are consequences of practicing your faith when “Religious Freedom Democrats” are in charge.

        Funding for the Shrine to Mohammad Atta is backed by groups with ties to the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood. (Surprise)

        There are perfectly legal means to prevent the establishment of a terrorist center where the citizens don’t want it. For example, the use of questionable foreign funds for such a project does not have automatic Constitutional protection. And the presence of an offensive structure can be legally addressed by zoning changes. Concerns about the building being a magnet for terrorists and even a “war room” control center should always be considered. Especially with the continued Islamist attacks occurring in New York City. An Islamist recently attacked NYC Police Officers with a hatchet.

        But we know Obama and Osama (posthumously) stand together on this, and they aren’t with the 911 victims.

        “These children were not children at the time of their attempted abortion”.

        Thank you for putting into words, better than I could ever do, your agreement with Hitler that abortion is acceptable when you consider someone else to be less than a real person (as in the case of non-Aryans).

        And Kermit Gosnell thanks you for your Democratic partisan support. Did his descended-from-slaves victims become real African-Americans before or after he chopped their heads off alive??

        Well, how is this?…here we have me, a Republican, defending the Right to Life (as stated in the Declaration of Independence–on which the very Constitution itself stands) of descendants of slaves, while Democrat cebowen wants them dead!

        Who needs Pew Research? Who needs the numbers?

        It’s all right here.

      • “Democratic historians of course, disagree with facts…(how does demonstrating that your points are wrong add up to not addressing your points?)”

        So almost every historian is a democrat, even the ones from other countries who have no dog in the fight? Are you trying to create another no true Scotsman fallacy? Also you have not proven any of them wrong.

        “At the website: Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends, December 17th, 2008. From Map: U. S. Migration Flows. Years 1975 to 2007 total.”

        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flows/

        Ok, I see another of the flaws of your argument. You seem to be arguing that the south was the only democratic stronghold during the war, and that everything else was republican. That is clearly false. There the democratic strong hold was pretty much everywhere but the north east. Your map also still does not prove in any way that those that moved were the racist democrats, and therefore requires a MASSIVE logical leap that there is no evidence for.

        “Into the South: 19,647,000

        Out of the South: 14,828,000

        That’s a transition of 34,475,000 out of your 80,000,000 total population.”

        Say what? Dude, you cannot do math. The population of the SOUTH was 80m, not the entire US. Assuming your numbers are correct, it is a net change of 4.8m people. If the population of the south is 80m, and massively democratic then a net change of 4.8m is not going to sway that number. And that is ASSUMING that EVERYONE from everywhere outside of the south was a republican.

        “And if YOU take into account birth rates and such it is YOUR conclusions that are…would Democrat Al Gore say “idiotic”? Or just “That’s the extra-chromosome crowd for you”?”

        Actually my conclusions are based on pure math, and logic, and you have yet to even try to disprove them. Where is the pew study that says that all of those that left were the democratic racist, I will wait, but not hold my breath. Disprove the net population change, I dare you.

        “No matter how you slice and dice those figures you can only come up with one conclusion: The racists and their Democratic Party have left, being replaced by pro-Civil Rights Republicans.”

        Actually no, you have no evidence to support this conclusion. In fact with a net difference of only 5% of the population of the south it is a pretty idiotic claim to make.

        “And yes, pastors do realize that there are consequences of practicing your faith when “Religious Freedom Democrats” are in charge.

        Funding for the Shrine to Mohammad Atta is backed by groups with ties to the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood. (Surprise)”

        Once again you prove my point, you can have all the freedom of religion as you want, as long as that religion is Christianity, oh the hypocrisy.

        “For example, the use of questionable foreign funds for such a project does not have automatic Constitutional protection”

        So no need for pesky things like a trial right, if it is “questionable” it is disqualified, no matter who determines if it is disqualified?

        “An Islamist recently attacked NYC Police Officers with a hatchet.”

        And a Christian blew up an FBI building, but I bet you would not like it to accuse all Christians of being terrorists.

        “Thank you for putting into words, better than I could ever do, your agreement with Hitler that abortion is acceptable when you consider someone else to be less than a real person (as in the case of non-Aryans).”

        First of all you are putting massive amount of words into my mouth. I dont support abortion, I support a woman right to chose. If a woman aborted my child I would not be with her, but I would support her constitutionally protected right to do so.

        “And Kermit Gosnell thanks you for your Democratic partisan support. Did his descended-from-slaves victims become real African-Americans before or after he chopped their heads off alive??”

        Say what? Did you finally fall off the wagon?

        “Well, how is this?…here we have me, a Republican, defending the Right to Life (as stated in the Declaration of Independence–on which the very Constitution itself stands) of descendants of slaves, while Democrat cebowen wants them dead!”

        you really cannot help but make logical leaps…Also the declaration of independence only supported men, but I guess you forgot that part. Women, children and blacks were excluded from that. But hey, lets not let “facts” get in the way.

        “Who needs Pew Research? Who needs the numbers?” Apparently not you, well at least not accurate numbers anyways.

        You still have not explained the key point though, why has the demographics for the party flip flopped. Why are republicans states rights, when they were federalists, why are the age, income levels, and location completely flip flopped?

      • You are the one who can’t do math. Nor read. I have adequately…oh never mind.

        The change was in the south. Where the population is 80 million. You gave the figure yourself, and the figures don’t assume anything. 19 million southerners left the south. 14 million others replaced them.

        The figures simply, effectively, and completely skew any attempt to connect the current Republican South with the former Slave Democrat South.

        “could have been completely reversed”? In your wildest dreams.

        You just HAVE TO make the Republicans the party of slavery don’t you? Because your whole political dreamscape vanishes into thin air any other way.

        POOF! It’s gone cebowen. It was never real. You complained that I hadn’t addressed your points and I had. Now why don’t you address one of my points:

        Where is the pro-slavery Republican plank? Where is it? Where has it ever been? Under what rock? Any year cebowen…where is it? Where was it? Is it invisible?

        Is that Bill Clinton whipping Joe-boy for stealing Mr. Joe’s dog food?

        Your Democratic Civil Rights “Champions” are cannon fodder for conservatives.

        And who said there shouldn’t be a trial for the Atta Shrine, or any legal recourse? The perfectly within the law protests themselves have already resulted in a major scaling back of the Atta Shrine. Islam is waging war against Israel and any and all of Israel’s supporters–particularly the office workers in the WTC, reason enough for the United States to declare their very presence in America to be not a “religion” at all, but in fact enemy insurgents on American soil.

        If Christians were waging this kind of terrorist war here…I’m sure you would be all about getting as many Baptist Churches built as the country could hold.

        You’re not gonna like this, but while Islamists in perfect keeping with the Quran (Surah 8: 12 “…I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks–that means behead them–and smite all their finger-tips off them.”) destroyed the WTC…no Christian ever blew any FBI building up. No such command in the Bible to attack your own country.

        Like Republican slavery, it ain’t there.

        “I don’t support abortion”

        “I would support” the “constitutionally protected right” to abortion. Who in the world do you think you’re trying to fool? I have never heard such double-talk (well, actually I have…depending on “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”). You who throws around charges of hypocrisy. If any Republican made such a statement the Democrats would say we fell into a box of extra chromosomes.

        And never mind that the Declaration of Independence supersedes the Constitution, and that without it the U.S. would still be under British rule. Never mind that it is the foundational document that establishes the existence of the U.S. so there can actually be a Constitution.

        “Say what? Did you finally fall off the wagon?”…great response. I knew you couldn’t do any better. It’s tough when you’re faced with that kind of evidence of your party’s complicity in the murder of descendants of slaves…descendants of everyone, from Anne Frank to Sarah Brown.

        “All ‘men’ (nothing about color there) are created equal”. Boy howdy, if you take that to mean women have no rights, then women better watch out–for you.

        And “created” equal means from the start…so no exclusion of children, even prior to birth.

        Again, who needs any research at all? When the bad guy says “I did it” that settles it.

      • “The change was in the south. Where the population is 80 million. You gave the figure yourself, and the figures don’t assume anything. 19 million southerners left the south. 14 million others replaced them.”

        Here is the math for you. The south was over 75% democrat in the times you spoke about, it was such a large strong hold it was called the “solid south”

        So if the south had 80m people, and was just at 75%/25% dem/republican, then that is 60m/20m. If 19m republicans come from elsewhere and 14m dems go elsewhere, something you still have not proved, then that means it is 39m to 44m, and dems would still have control of the south, so again, your math DOES NOT WORK. and that assumes it was a perfect move, which I know is wrong because parth of the movement to the south included over half a million liberal blacks in what was known as the second great migration.

        “The figures simply, effectively, and completely skew any attempt to connect the current Republican South with the former Slave Democrat South.”

        I never mentioned anything about slaves…You seem to mention it a lot though, and put those words into my mouth for me. It seems you have something bugging you about your past. Understand I live in the south. I was born and raised in NC, by a very converative, and racist family. My uncle threatened to kill my aunt for marryting a black man, but was a stanch republican.

        You still have not addressed the point. Saying “I addressed it” when you have not pointed out why republicans are southern, mostly white, mostly poor or rich, all want states rights, want Christian beliefs enforced on others, the same as the Dems of old. You have never addressed that., however I have addressed every one of your points.

        “Where is the pro-slavery Republican plank? Where is it? Where has it ever been? Under what rock? Any year cebowen…where is it? Where was it? Is it invisible?”

        You keep bringing up this slavery issue. Slavery is morally dead. Where once it was moral to own slaves, it is no longer. While there are still a few, mostly conservatives, who advocate for slavery, they are a minor issue… Why you keep bringing it up, I dont know, I assume as a red herring…

        “Is that Bill Clinton whipping Joe-boy for stealing Mr. Joe’s dog food?”
        I dont know WTF that is suposed to mean. Can you speak English?

        “And who said there shouldn’t be a trial for the Atta Shrine, or any legal recourse? The perfectly within the law protests themselves have already resulted in a major scaling back of the Atta Shrine.”

        Now you are moving the goal posts. You stated there was no constitutional protection because the money was quationable. Now you are changing the argument.

        “If Christians were waging this kind of terrorist war here…I’m sure you would be all about getting as many Baptist Churches built as the country could hold.”

        Actually, no, I would not care because unlike you I dont judge an entire group by their extremes.

        “You’re not gonna like this, but while Islamists in perfect keeping with the Quran (Surah 8: 12 “…I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks–that means behead them–and smite all their finger-tips off them.”) destroyed the WTC…no Christian ever blew any FBI building up. No such command in the Bible to attack your own country.”
        Again with your no true scotsman fallacy. You know what a fallacy is right?

        ““I would support” the “constitutionally protected right” to abortion. Who in the world do you think you’re trying to fool? I have never heard such double-talk (well, actually I have…depending on “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”). You who throws around charges of hypocrisy. If any Republican made such a statement the Democrats would say we fell into a box of extra chromosomes.”

        The 2 things are not mutually exclusive. I can not belive in God, but believe in your constitutional right to believe in one, that does not make me religious. I can not believe in gun ownership, and still believe in your constitutional right to own one. I can not believe in abortion, but believe in a womans constitutional right to her own body. It is not double speak by definition.

        And by the way I bet I am way more conservative than you are on guns…

        “And never mind that the Declaration of Independence supersedes the Constitution, and that without it the U.S. would still be under British rule. Never mind that it is the foundational document that establishes the existence of the U.S. so there can actually be a Constitution.”

        It doe not supersead it. it is part of the natural laws of the land, but the constituion is king. In fact it does not even establish the possibility of a constituion, just a nation not under brittish rule. And if it was up to conservatives we would not even have a constitution, as they wanted just a lose group of states going about their own buisness… Thankfully progressives saw the folly in that..

        “Say what? Did you finally fall off the wagon?”…great response. I knew you couldn’t do any better. It’s tough when you’re faced with that kind of evidence of your party’s complicity in the murder of descendants of slaves…descendants of everyone, from Anne Frank to Sarah Brown.”

        Well when your statement makes absolutely no sense, what do you expect? There is nothing to actually post to counter nonsense….

        ““All ‘men’ (nothing about color there) are created equal”. Boy howdy, if you take that to mean women have no rights, then women better watch out–for you.”

        Blacks were not considered men at the time, but I am sure you knew that…Women had no rights at the time either, even after the constitution, no right to vote, no property rights, you really dont seem to know your history….

        “And “created” equal means from the start…so no exclusion of children, even prior to birth” ahh, but that is your definition……You like to assume your arbatary definition is absolute a lot dont you…

      • Fact:

        The transition of the South from Democrat to Republican did not take off until after 1976, when Jimmy Carter won every Confederate state except Virginia.

        This is absolutely consistent with the migrations.

        The only reason Carter lost the South in 1980 was because of his incredibly inept presidency and the emergence of a national leader who stood for America and who promised absolute opposition to Communism. Hence the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

        In 1992 and 1996 Southern Democrat Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Republicans won Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

        These are the times I spoke of. 75% Democrat? Hardly. A slow transition consistent with migration is more likely. And years after the Civil Rights Act controversy, which certainly wouldn’t have drawn Democrats to the very architects of Civil Rights. It was the ludicrous liberal ideas of the Democrats that drove some of them away…forced busing, affirmative action quotas. And the Democrats’ embracing of Marxism (spread the wealth around from each according to his ability to each according to his need).

        As recently as last election Obama won Virginia and Florida, narrowly losing North Carolina.

        Your figures swing like a pendulum, but the migrations literally mirror the electorate.

        The entire national debate has been festered by Democrats who are trying their dead-level best to put the Republicans square into the middle of the Confederacy itself. “Republicans are the Confederacy (Democrats). They switched parties. That means the pro-slavery Democrats “switched parties”.

        If this debate were only about busing and quotas and welfare there wouldn’t be any issue about who the Republicans and Democrats are and who they aren’t. It is the slavery connection that drives this insistence on the “switched parties” myth.

        You yourself even try to say that conservatives today are advocating slavery. That is just plain cock and bulloney.

        As for who considered blacks to be men, they were (whether the Democrats liked it or not), and the Declaration makes no distinction by color, and therefore blacks were granted the right to life and liberty by the Declaration, without which there could be no Constitution because we wouldn’t be a Nation.

        How could there be a U.S. Constitution for British land?

        Could you explain that please?

        That’s what the war of independence was about. If you can’t understand that fact, how can any of your “information” be relied on at all?

        “Progressives”, even Americans in general, had no resemblance to today’s Democrats…except those who advocated slavery.

        And yes, it’s my definition that Sarah Brown was a child when she was murdered. How is she aborted alive if she isn’t a child? What is she then? Trash to you? Disposable, headed for the incinerator trash?

        I guess you can be against murder, but still support a doctor’s right to commit it.

        You made your position pretty clear on that.

        And my quote from the Quran is not a fallacy. Just ask Obama. He ought to know.

        I already alluded to Mr. Joe and Joe-boy. My post as of 1:47 AM. Pretty good comedy if it wasn’t so dangerously close to the truth…it appears you missed it. Do you read your other sources that closely?

      • “Fact:

        The transition of the South from Democrat to Republican did not take off until after 1976, when Jimmy Carter won every Confederate state except Virginia.”

        You have a hard time understanding the word “fact” it seems. Fact, carter was a democrat. Fact the election before that they all voted for a republican, fact, the election before that the vast majority of the south voted for a republican, the only clear holdout being Texas.

        However that just takes into account presidential elections, not local elections which is more indicative of an areas leanings.

        “This is absolutely consistent with the migrations.”

        You are making logical leaps again. A 32 year migration of people does not explain one term “over night” switch in parties. It was not a gradual shift, it was 76 Democrat, 80 onward almost exclusively republican.

        http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

        “In 1992 and 1996 Southern Democrat Bill Clinton won Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Republicans won Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.”

        He was able to split the south, being southern and being democrat, does not automatically making him the same type of southern democrat that we are talking about.. Again, use some logic.

        “Your figures swing like a pendulum, but the migrations literally mirror the electorate.”

        And by literally you mean figuratively right? I pointed out, using math, how your numbers dont add up. The “migrations” are aggregate numbers. They dont take into account party, age, income, or anything that would be required for you to come to your conclusions. Again this is where your entire argument fails.

        “The entire national debate has been festered by Democrats who are trying their dead-level best to put the Republicans square into the middle of the Confederacy itself. “Republicans are the Confederacy (Democrats). They switched parties. That means the pro-slavery Democrats “switched parties”.”

        Well when it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Again, the demographics counter your argument. Something you seem to refuse to counter….Southern rich and ultra poor, and elderly Christians now republicans, where as before they were southern democrats…

        “As for who considered blacks to be men, they were (whether the Democrats liked it or not), and the Declaration makes no distinction by color, and therefore blacks were granted the right to life and liberty by the Declaration, without which there could be no Constitution because we wouldn’t be a Nation.”

        Sigh, the declaration does not “grant” anything. It states a belief and a rational for a succession. They could have wrote that and then not tried to succeed. While the DoI is an important document, and part of the “natural laws” it is NOT the governing laws. It uses words that were intentionally left out of the constitution. The DoI does not allow for the creation of a country, but just a rational for leaving the old one.. In fact for a decade after the war most people were content on not having a full country… Again your history sucks.

        “How could there be a U.S. Constitution for British land?” Bad logic. We did not need to issue a DoI to have leave the British, the fact that we did, does not make its statements law.

        “That’s what the war of independence was about. If you can’t understand that fact, how can any of your “information” be relied on at all?”

        All the false dilemma logical fallacy. You like your fallacies, dont you. If it was what the war for independence was about then there would not have been any more slaves after the war for independence, because the DoI released them.. Rational yourself out of that one.

        ““Progressives”, even Americans in general, had no resemblance to today’s Democrats…except those who advocated slavery.”

        That sentence does not even make sense. There is no democratic polices that advocate for slavery.

        “And yes, it’s my definition that Sarah Brown was a child when she was murdered. How is she aborted alive if she isn’t a child? What is she then? Trash to you? Disposable, headed for the incinerator trash?”

        by definition abort means to stop something, and the term was created to mean to stop a pregnancy. You are trying to use an appeal to emotion fallacy from me. but I use my brain in discussions, not my emotions, because “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.”

        “I guess you can be against murder, but still support a doctor’s right to commit it.”

        You could, but that would not be my position at all. Abortion is not about murder, because no child has been born. Shoot the constitution even defines a citizen as someone born, so a fetus would not count.

        “And my quote from the Quran is not a fallacy. Just ask Obama. He ought to know.”
        I never said your quote from the Quran was a fallacy, it was your statement that no Christian blew up the FBI building. IT was a no true scotsman fallacy.

        “I already alluded to Mr. Joe and Joe-boy. My post as of 1:47 AM. Pretty good comedy if it wasn’t so dangerously close to the truth…it appears you missed it. Do you read your other sources that closely?”

        Your quote made no sense then, and it makes even less sense now.

      • My quote from the Quran was intended to demonstrate how in the case of Islam, you can’t separate a religion from that religion’s Jihad. The Jihad is thoroughly consistent with the teachings of that religion’s “bible”. Therefore, to say you are an Islamist but you don’t advocate Jihad is ridiculous. The Islamic religion is at war with Israel and Israel’s allies and therefore should have no standing in the U.S. at all. Islam is waging Jihad against America.

        Christianity is not. The fallacy is in comparing the two as if they were just two different religions. Timothy McVeigh acted entirely independently of the Christian Bible. Therefore he is not one of us. He is a murderer and the Bible states that no murderer will be in the Kingdom of God. The Quran on the other hand, gives full support to the beheaders of today’s news.

        “…unlike you I don’t judge an entire group by their extremes”. There is nothing “extreme” to Islamists about the Quran.

        So your comparison is the fallacy.

        I asked the question earlier…do you really think Bill Clinton wouldn’t have had slaves? Oh COME on! I gave you a scenario that I believe would be accurate based on the way President Clinton treated those he claimed to support. The scenario involved his dog “Mr. Joe” and his slave “Joe-boy”. That’s how animals and slaves were named you know. The animal was more dignified. And the animal ate quality food while the slave, who could only eat at all after he fed the hounds, would get the crumbs the hounds left behind. I say it because I truly believe it. Bill Clinton, Southern Democrat–president from 1993-2001. Right in the middle of the years I “spoke of”.

        The “Progressives” of yesterday had slaves. Today’s Democrats would also have slaves were it not for Republican actions that stopped their slavery in its tracks. This is simple history. The Democrats had slaves, the slaves were freed by the Republicans. So the Democrats CAN’T have slaves anymore. They do however, advocate for abortion. “My body…my property” Same chant. Roe/Wade, Dred Scott.

        There has been no change of heart.

        No change of heart on either side of the aisle, only the Democrats’ recognition that “If we can’t make them slaves…well then, they might as well vote for us”.

        The Democrats have never championed fairness and if their constituents today wanted slavery to be legalized they would hire Jane Roe’s attorney and get to work.

        “a fetus would not count”. This is the quintessence of my point right here.

        “a fetus would not count”. Because a fetus, unlike African-Americans, can’t vote.

        Sarah Elizabeth Brown “would not count”. Gianna Jessen “would not count”. Kermit Gosnell’s victims “would not count”…and oh how Nancy Pelosi tried to “rational herself out of that one”. The blood on her hands will still be there on Judgment Day.

        No wonder the Declaration is such a thorn in your side.

        You said those advocating slavery are mostly conservative. This is a confusion of wording, I have no intention of misquoting you. To do so would defeat my purpose altogether. I understand that you did not say ALL conservatives advocate slavery.

        What I don’t understand is your trying to back off of the slavery issue…”Well, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck”.

        Watch out for the quicksand.

        If Republicans have switched places with the Democrats but they don’t advocate slavery, then in what way have they “switched”?? To me switched means switched. That means the 1856 Democratic Party Platform would become the Republicans’ 2014 Platform. And it favored slavery.

        And without advocating for slavery how are Republicans causing direct harm to African-Americans? What formerly Democratic policies other than slavery…which directly harmed African-Americans…are now Republican policies?

        Let me try to guess…

        Opposition to forced busing. By not forcing white children to attend school in far away black neighborhoods, this directly harms black children.

        By not forcing children to ride a school bus for nearly 2 hours each way every day Republicans directly harm black children…because they utterly hate the hue, tone, and reflective qualities of the black children’s skin. They just hate that African look, along with the curly hair and other African physical characteristics. Just hate that color. Won’t even pet a black cat.

        Opposition to affirmative action and court-mandated hiring quotas must be another way Republicans directly inflict intentional personal injury on African-Americans. To not support this policy is akin to shooting a black person in the head with a high-powered rifle…just for being black.

        And of course to oppose welfare, which is not a race-based giveaway in the first place, is to literally lynch African-American citizens. Same for food stamps. There’s the body hanging from the tree and swaying in the wind.

        And maybe it’s segregation. That’s why the Republicans require Clarence Thomas to sit in a different courtroom from the white justices. That’s why Reagan, Nixon, Bush, and Bush all ran on Republican platforms that advocated segregation by law.

        And maybe it’s that 1964 Civil Rights Act which the racist Republicans opposed with an 80% yes vote for the CRA, and the Democrats so much more supported with their overwhelming mandate 64% yes vote.

        And thank you for reminding me that presidential elections have no bearing on the partisan make-up of a region. I guess Bill Clinton’s 50-50 split of the south with his opponents doesn’t mean anything because it conflicts with your flailing attempts to bolster the lie that the South was 75% Democratic during the years I “spoke of”.

        You have tried to claim that the migration statistics mean nothing because no one knows how many of the migrants were Democrats or Republicans, young or old, rich or poor, Christian or non-Christian. And whatever or whatever.

        You completely miss the point that the migrations reflect the fact that today’s South is not yesterday’s South. So when the South votes solidly Republican on former Democratic soil, they are not personally the Democrats who were the former Confederacy. The Brady Brats and Leave it to Beaver moved to Birmingham from Michigan. And the transition of the South is in full swing. The South is voting mostly Republican today because they oppose the Marxism of the Democrats. How do they in any way become Confederates?

        That was my point from the beginning.

        The Declaration of Independence was the official severing of British rule over the colonies. Had there been no Declaration there would be no U.S. to have a Constitution.

        You can’t write a Constitution for a country that doesn’t exist. You first have to establish that country…then write the laws. Can I just write laws for you and your property?

        “Rational yourself out of…” what? So the Declaration released the slaves. And the Constitution of the time re-enslaved them. This is thoroughly consistent with what I have been saying…that both slavery and abortion are Democratic partisan abrogations of the very founding principles of the country as stated in our ORIGINAL founding document.

        The document that was issued on July 4th, 1776. The birthday of the United States of America.

        Sans the Declaration…you have a Queen.

        Let’s hope that doesn’t become a reality in 2016…God Save the Country!

      • “My quote from the Quran was intended to demonstrate how in the case of Islam, you can’t separate a religion from that religion’s Jihad. The Jihad is thoroughly consistent with the teachings of that religion’s “bible”. Therefore, to say you are an Islamist but you don’t advocate Jihad is ridiculous.”

        So to be a Jew is to advocate the stoning of women and children who do the little is crime? If you are a Christian you have to believe the world was created in 6 literal days? you are creating massive false dilemma fallacies. there are 1.2B Muslims. If they were all extremists we would either be dead now, or in a massive world war.

        “The Islamic religion is at war with Israel and Israel’s allies and therefore should have no standing in the U.S. at all. Islam is waging Jihad against America.”

        So you dont believe in the first amendment huh? Or is it like I stated before, you are free to be any religion you like as long as it is Christian.

        “There is nothing “extreme” to Islamists about the Quran.So your comparison is the fallacy.”

        Your statement is an opinion. Extreme is a relative term, therefore my statement, by definition, cannot be a fallacy. You should really look up fallacies.

        “I asked the question earlier…do you really think Bill Clinton wouldn’t have had slaves? Oh COME on! I gave you a scenario that I believe would be accurate based on the way President Clinton treated those he claimed to support. The scenario involved his dog “Mr. Joe” and his slave “Joe-boy”. That’s how animals and slaves were named you know. The animal was more dignified. And the animal ate quality food while the slave, who could only eat at all after he fed the hounds, would get the crumbs the hounds left behind. I say it because I truly believe it. Bill Clinton, Southern Democrat–president from 1993-2001. Right in the middle of the years I “spoke of”.”

        And I told you that any of us born during that time period, to a rich southern family would have a very heavy chance of being slave owners, you, me, Clinton. Yes even you. It was moral at the time. It is not moral now. It was even justified in Christianity, shoot the entire Southern baptist church was founded because of it.

        “The “Progressives” of yesterday had slaves. Today’s Democrats would also have slaves were it not for Republican actions that stopped their slavery in its tracks. This is simple history. The Democrats had slaves, the slaves were freed by the Republicans. So the Democrats CAN’T have slaves anymore. They do however, advocate for abortion. “My body…my property” Same chant. Roe/Wade, Dred Scott.”

        You know what progressive means right, conservatives? Conservatives want things to stay the same, or as they had been. They did not want a USA, they wanted to keep slaves, because it was the way things had been. They think things are fine the way they are or were.That is why they are called conservatives. Progressive want things to change, because they see potentially better ways to do things. Conservatives do not fight for change and progressives do not fight for things to stay the same. It does not happen.

        “If Republicans have switched places with the Democrats but they don’t advocate slavery, then in what way have they “switched”?? To me switched means switched. That means the 1856 Democratic Party Platform would become the Republicans’ 2014 Platform. And it favored slavery.”

        you realize there are other things on a parties platform besides slavery right? I have mentioned things that have flipped flopped throughout this thread that you have IGNORED, such as states rights. Dems were the party of states rights, now it is republicans.. If your migration theory was true that would probably not be the case…

        “No wonder the Declaration is such a thorn in your side.”

        It is not a thorn in my side, because I know what it is. It is not the law of the land, that is the constitution.

        “Opposition to forced busing. By not forcing white children to attend school in far away black neighborhoods, this directly harms black children.”

        How does busing harm black children? If anything it assisted them. Due to separate but equal, and other jim crow laws the white schools were magnitudes better than the black schools. To say going to a better school is harmful to black kids is just idiotic.

        “And of course to oppose welfare, which is not a race-based giveaway in the first place, is to literally lynch African-American citizens. Same for food stamps. There’s the body hanging from the tree and swaying in the wind.”

        To oppose welfare in general is one thing, but to try and target things that are majority black, that is another completely. I have not seen many republicans who oppose welfare in general, they want to want to limit things because of some perceived, but not validated, set of people who are living better then them, it is almost always a racial thing that those people have, that they object to, butt hey typically dont want you to mess with people drinking or smoking… That is a problem.

        “And maybe it’s segregation. That’s why the Republicans require Clarence Thomas to sit in a different courtroom from the white justices. That’s why Reagan, Nixon, Bush, and Bush all ran on Republican platforms that advocated segregation by law.”

        Like slavery, segregation is a settled issue, has been for more than 30 years now. Stop trying to bring up strawmen fallacies.

        “And maybe it’s that 1964 Civil Rights Act which the racist Republicans opposed with an 80% yes vote for the CRA, and the Democrats so much more supported with their overwhelming mandate 64% yes vote.”

        This argument presumes the the original premise to be correct, which I have pointed out time and again, cannot be.

        “And thank you for reminding me that presidential elections have no bearing on the partisan make-up of a region. I guess Bill Clinton’s 50-50 split of the south with his opponents doesn’t mean anything because it conflicts with your flailing attempts to bolster the lie that the South was 75% Democratic during the years I “spoke of”.”

        Reagan won the country with 90% of the vote, does that mean that all the northern liberals phased out of existence and then phased back in to vote in Clinton? The vote of the president is not seen as the political leanings of the local people. Never has.

        “You have tried to claim that the migration statistics mean nothing because no one knows how many of the migrants were Democrats or Republicans, young or old, rich or poor, Christian or non-Christian. And whatever or whatever”

        In regards to what your premise is, yes it means nothing, because it does not take into account hte demographics of those people. If they were all liberals moving out of the north, and all conservatives moving out of the south then it would show the complete opposite of what you claim it means, not even taking into account the existing makeup of the areas.

        “You completely miss the point that the migrations reflect the fact that today’s South is not yesterday’s South. So when the South votes solidly Republican on former Democratic soil, they are not personally the Democrats who were the former Confederacy. The Brady Brats and Leave it to Beaver moved to Birmingham from Michigan. And the transition of the South is in full swing. The South is voting mostly Republican today because they oppose the Marxism of the Democrats. How do they in any way become Confederates?”

        Except it does not, logically, do that. All it shows is some people move here form other areas and some people moved elsewhere. When it comes to the politics of the area it shows nothing.

        “The Declaration of Independence was the official severing of British rule over the colonies. Had there been no Declaration there would be no U.S. to have a Constitution.”

        Illogical. Throughout history countries have severed ties with the British crown without a DoI. Honk Kong for example used to be a colony, and is no longer one, and it never had a Declaration of Independence.

        “You can’t write a Constitution for a country that doesn’t exist. You first have to establish that country…then write the laws.”

        Actually you can. There was no USA before the constitution was written. It was a lose confederation of states for a decade after the war, and large groups of people wanted to keep it that way.

        ” Can I just write laws for you and your property?”

        You dont OWN my land, my land still exists though, even still you do it all the time through your representatives.

        ““Rational yourself out of…” what? So the Declaration released the slaves. And the Constitution of the time re-enslaved them. This is thoroughly consistent with what I have been saying…that both slavery and abortion are Democratic partisan abrogations of the very founding principles of the country as stated in our ORIGINAL founding document.”

        there was 15 years between the DoI and the Constitutions. If your logic held true then the slaves would have been free for those 15 years, oh wait, they were not.

        The document that was issued on July 4th, 1776. The birthday of the United States of America.

      • “You yourself even try to say that conservatives today are advocating slavery. That is just plain cock and bulloney.”

        I never stated conservatives in general advocated slavery, I said more do than democrats do. People like Bundy, or duck dynasty’s phill, but of course you will probably try to use no true scotsman fallacies on them too, I assume.

  46. I am well aware that Democratic historians disagree with me. Did you think you were giving me new information? What do you think I’ve been posting about?

    You made no new point other than to try to deny the results of research over the last four decades. Do you need even more debunking? Fine…

    Who said the folks who moved are poor? The demographics show that the movement happened, poor or not. Don’t you think the Southern-turned-Northern Country Club Democrats had any money left over from the cotton industry? And how are the “filthy-rich” Republicans who moved south suddenly “poor”? Except that they have no earned-on-the-backs-of-slaves inheritance.

    And how is it that the last three Democratic presidents prior to Obama were drawling Southern Slave-State Democrats who were elected by all those “anti-slavery” New England Northerners?

    “Religious rights”? You have got to be kidding me. Do you mean the pastors in Houston? The ones whose sermons the Democratic mayor attempted to confiscate?

    Religious rights are fundamental to the constitution. How did we suddenly get those rights from the Democrats? Oh, I’m sorry…I guess you mean the rights of Islamic terrorists to build a shrine to Mohammad Atta at Ground Zero.

    And Civil Rights…that was the primarily Republican 1964 Civil Rights Act you’re talking about, right? Or do you mean civil race-based privileges? Like the right of children to spend half the day on a school bus just to “level the playing field”?

    Or the right of Baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown to be aborted by Dr. George Tiller? She survived for 5 years and finally died from complications of her equal women’s civil rights. Check her out at the findagrave website. Her tombstone with her picture and her story are there.

    Or try Gianna Jessen’s personal website. She was also aborted and survived, and the fact that she is still alive is in the Democrats’ minds an abrogation of her mother’s precious right to choose.

    And don’t forget stalwart Democratic Champion of African-American Unborn Children’s Rights, The Distinguished Kermit Gosnell, MD.

    Just like Obama, your party can’t hide from his Democratic Legacy.

    There’s your Democratic Party’s “polar opposite” change. But maybe you can help me with the Republicans’ “polar opposite” “change”. Can’t seem to find it. How have the Republicans “changed”? Where is the pro-slavery plank in any of their platforms ever?

    Is opposition to forced busing racist?

    I wonder what LBJ’s slaves names would have been??…”Hey Betsy-Girl!”…or how about “You-Al!”…”You-Jesse!”…

  47. cebowen, go argue with Pew Research. The plain fact is the Southern Democrats moved north where they continue to be Democrats and continue to support the same kinds of unfair practices they fought for in the south. And the south is now populated by transplanted northerners who are the new Republican South.

    cebowen, you can’t get away from slavery. It’s you. Just like abortion. It’s you. And particularly the of baby descendants of slaves. It’s you to your very core.

    It’s you because you give life blood to the Democrats and their policies.

    • So you are saying that, even though the demographics are almost exactly the same now for republicans as they were for democrats at the time (poor/rich, typically old, southern white christians), the platform is nearly identical, (states rights, religion) AND with the demographics being almost exactly the same now for Dems as it was for Republicans at the time, middle class younger northerners, and the platform nearly identical, equal rights for all, that is just all coincidence?

      And you dont know me, so dont pretend to. I am not a democrat, I am very middle of the road, in fact I only hate dems slightly less than republicans. And even more I look mostly at liberal versus conservative more than party title, as it tells me more about the group. Throughout the history of the US the conservatives have been dragged kicking and screaming by the liberals to change for the better, from the signing of the constitution (anti-federalists were the conservatives), to freedom of the slaves, to everything else. I cannot think of much, other than the moderation of the constitution in its balance, that conservatives have given this country.

      • No, research has demonstrated that.

        The Southern Democrats did not become Republicans. They became Northern Democrats. And the Republicans did not become Southern Democrats. They were, are, and ever will still be Republicans.

        The Democrats do not and never have supported “equal rights for all”. Middle class, younger, older, northerners, southerners…if they’re Democrats they would own slaves if they could. No Republican of any consequence at all has EVER advocated slavery. How then can your party claim we do? It’s an outrageous politically motivated lie. The notion that the very party that fought to end slavery is now the actual party OF slavery being festered on us by the party that really did have slaves…that’s like the Devil claiming he’s the guy who died on the Cross!

        To what extremes will you “Independents” go to defend your Democrat Party? The only things you and your party ever did “for” African-Americans were the bought-and-paid-for free hand-outs of welfare, affirmative action, food stamps, and forced busing. The only reason you and your party “oppose” slavery today is that you need the African-American vote.

        And do you really think Southern Democrat Bill Clinton wouldn’t have owned slaves?…

        “Hey Mr. Joe, I brought your dog food. See, Mr. Joe here…he’s my dog. Joe-boy, he’s my slave. Joe-boy gets the crumbs that spill out of Mr. Joe’s doggie dish.”

      • “No, research has demonstrated that.”

        Historians consistently disagree with you on this.

        So the poor of the south just up and moved? Something that does not happen. The poor does not just move in mass to other areas. You have to have money to move.

        “The Democrats do not and never have supported “equal rights for all”.”

        So Religious rights, civil rights, marriage equality, these are not “equal rights for all” stances?

        “if they’re Democrats they would own slaves if they could. No Republican of any consequence at all has EVER advocated slavery.”

        2 no true Scotsman fallacies in one, I am starting to sense a pattern.

        You wrote all that, and did not address a single one of my points.

        If the parties did not change then why are the demographics nearly polar opposite of what they were prior to the 50’s and throughout history, and why are the platforms nearly polar opposite of what they were during the same time frame.

        The only thing that changed was the name, conservatives are still the same southern conservatives, and the north the same liberals, which is why I pay no mind to party names, they change.

    • No, I’m not going to say “What a lot of KKKrop”, but Kropotkin…before you join a discussion please read the previous posts. All of the bull from wicasta has been thoroughly debunked already.

      Please don’t bore us with useless regurgitated echoes.

  48. While we wait for Stephen’s reply I will continue…

    In fact, only one Democratic (Dixiecrat) senator who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act actually switched to the Republican party: Senator Strom Thurmond, and you’d have to have a pretty severe case of dyslexia to believe that Senator Thurmond switched because he believed the Republicans to be the more racist party based on their votes FOR the CRA.

    Senator Thurmond had sided with Barry Goldwater in his belief that the CRA was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of private parties, and he had decided to support Goldwater’s campaign for president.

    Only two other Dixiecrats (out of 21 total) switched parties: Jesse Helms in 1970 (Helms joined the Senate in 1972, therefore having no part in the CRA vote). And Virginia Governor Mills E. Godwind Jr. (governors didn’t vote on the CRA).

    The actual change in party identity began in later years, and was encouraged by Nixon’s supposedly “racist” southern strategy to win southern voters. The driving force behind the southern strategy wasn’t “Republican racism” at all, but was in fact Nixon’s opposition to the unequivocally unconstitutional practice of forced busing.

    There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power to order American Citizens to attend a certain school based on the hue of their skin. Only in the minds of the increasingly socialistic Democrats.

    Furthermore, the “switching” of parties didn’t begin to take place until the southerners had become convinced that Democratic hopes of keeping governmental racism alive were lost. In fact, most southern Republicans today were never Democrats or Dixiecrats in the first place.

    And…according to statistics provided by the Pew Social and Demographic site (per pewsocialtrends, 12/17/2008), between 1975 and 2007 13 million southerners left the south and migrated east, west, and north. During that time 19 million non-southerners moved into the south. And the south became a Republican stronghold.

    Kind of makes you wonder how many former NORTHERN Democrats really actually in fact did “switch” parties…

  49. Stephen: Can you provide us with the names of all of the Democratic members of the House and Senate who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then switched parties and became Republicans? And your source.

    Thank you.

      • You did?…up top, huh? You mean Jefferson Davis, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, Sam Nunn, J. William Fulbright, and Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd were Democratic senators and congressmen who voted against the 1964 CRA and then became Republicans?? They’re on the only list I saw.

        You got one senator…Strom Thurmond, the only Democratic senator who voted against the ’64 CRA and then switched parties.

        Maybe you can do better with the House. And don’t forget RELIABLE sources.

        By the way, the main reason southern Democrats have joined the Republicans in recent years is that the Democrats are the real American Communist Party. They favor full government control of the means of production and would dictate against non-Muslim religious freedom in order to serve the anti-Christian bigots who vote for them.

        Obama wants to “spread the wealth around”–from each according to his ability, to each according to his vot…I mean “need”.

      • Conservatives, yes they certainly were. They were conservative as a love child between Huckabee and McCarthy, babysat by Ted Nugent…and then they joined some other party that was filling its ranks with others on the far right that oppose change. I leave it up to you to figure that out, as I am here only to thwart your Weasel Wording game in this terribly constructed straw man.

        Liberal and Progressives advocate and cause change/progress.

        Conservatives seek to stop change, and advocate tradition and status quo.

        I give to shitas what Junior Higfh Drama club they all belonged to, you are not going to claim credit, for shit your type is opposed to.

        This would be even a weaker claim that it already is, where our Republic still strong, and had more than two shitty parties. Thanks for the Oligarchy. The founders didn’t want it, and never mentioned Capitalism, Corporations or Profit once in the Constitution. Mostly it concerned the well being and welfare of everyone. No just those gods of the 1% fanboys. You know the French began murdering for entertainment with a big box blade their 1% at a inequality rate less than what we have now. The also included the petit bourgeois, the wannabe aristocrats. Watch your head.

        Your argument is analogous to Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh claiming that they were once pac fists and or coinsurance objectors, anti-war and Liberal; and not chicken hawks because they once shit their pants in the draft office lobby.

        We only have two parties now of influence, due to crap politics, lobbying and gerrymandering, voter suppression and electorate fuckery. Republican and Democrat mean nothing but the color of your lapel pin. You votes though, do you advocate taking a risk, investing in the future and possible ideas to fix problems you or others may have? Or do you just want to be left alone, and want to keep the status quo or perhaps return to a past way of doing things? Because those or the philosophies by which history will judge these comments.

        You grandchildren will be ashamed of your argument. Especially since I come from a long line of smartasses, intellectual bullies, and regular steroid type bullies;
        that will mock them for your views.

      • The Democratic Party is the home of your liberal/progressivism and you know it.

        Why don’t you call them the “DemoKKKrats”? After all, they invented the Klan. Conservative Republicans have never had any connection to the Klan, no matter how much you wish they did, and no matter how much you label them so.

        Accomplishments the GOP is still proud of today:

        Freeing the slaves
        Citizenship for the slaves
        Voting rights for the slaves
        The 1964 Civil Rights Act

        Accomplishments of the Democrats:

        Slavery
        Opposition to citizenship for the slaves
        Opposition to voting rights for the slaves
        The KKK
        Welfare
        Criminal rights, including opposition to the justifiable retroactive abortion of murderers
        The unjustifiable execution of 40% of unborn black children in New York City

        Oh yeah, and you guys got David Duke back. He recently endorsed a Democratic candidate in New York…because the Democrat hates Israel.

      • …and we’re still not seeing those southern Democrats who voted against the ’64 CRA and then switched parties, other than Strom Thurmond. I don’t blame you for leaving it up to someone else to figure out. Why even go up to bat when you know you’re gonna strike out?

  50. Stephen, thank you for acknowledging that neither party is “untarnished” on racial issues. My point has never been that the Republicans are “untarnished” by any and all presences of anyone who holds or has ever held views concerning African-Americans that would be objectionable.

    I have alluded to David Duke and the fact that he has been roundly ostracized by the vast majority of Republicans, myself standing at the pinnacle of the ostracization. And he still bounces back and forth between parties.

    Your criticism of Barry Goldwater in and of itself acknowledges Goldwater’s views were not “racist”, but in fact were based on his personal philosophy on the Constitution, states’ rights, and the jurisdiction of the courts. Ronald Reagan also opposed the 1964 CRA, not because he had a particular objection to the hue, tone, and reflective characteristics of the color black, but because he believed elements of the act to be unconstitutional.

    For example, is it truly constitutional for the government to decide who an employer must hire? Maybe, but you can make the best case for that in requiring federal agencies to adhere to federally mandated hiring practices rather than private enterprise. Or states.

    And as to the claim that racism and support for slavery was regional, the argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny when one recognizes the monkey wrench thrown into the statement by the departure of many conservatives from the Democratic party as the party adopted more and more socialistic objectives. This fact eliminates the Democratic party from comparison with the Republicans on the issue of race, or from comparison with America or American values.

    Were those who opposed Communism expected to remain with a party that embraces it? Furthermore, their departure in no way changed the votes of the CRA. Republicans had overwhelmingly supported it and none of them left the GOP to join the Democrats.

    Democrats on the other hand had found in black voters a new source of support. But what have they done for blacks that has made any meaningful differences in the lives of blacks? What have Democrats unilaterally done for blacks…over the across-the-board objections of the Republican party…that has made a meaningful difference in the lives of blacks?

    Welfare, Affirmative Action, Food Stamps, forced busing, and a reluctance to prosecute black criminals does not constitute a meaningful difference. If they did you would not have the guttural poverty, drug addiction, and violence present today in cities dominated by African-American/Democratic leadership.

    What the Democrats have therefore, is not African-American loyalty based on demonstrated improvements in the lives of African-Americans solely the result of the dedicated work on their behalf by the Democratic party, but you have in fact a new type of slavery, the slavery to the Welfare check. The slavery to cold cash handouts (and a pittance at that). If you want the hand-outs to keep handing out, then you’d better vote for the source of the hand-outs.

    This is pretty simple Stephen.

    • So Bill, if I understand the crap you are throwing…your claim is that Conservatives advocate radical change and promote trying new ideas? You are claiming that today’s, anti-science, anti-equality, anti-immigration Rebubbklan party is somehow Progressive?

      The dictionaries disagree, in fact, they say the opposite.

      Conservative- Against change.
      Progressive/Liberal – Open to new ideas, change advocates.

      Darwin- Those most likely to survive, are those most adaptable to change.

      Lying for Jesus is still Lying. Even under the haze of weasel wording,.

  51. Unfortunately I have to go to work now. I work nights…so Obama can take from me according to my ability and spread my wealth around to each according to his need.

  52. Well cebowen, you stumbled into the only thing anyone in the parties may have switched, and that is that no Democrat today favors states rights and small government. They now favor Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. In those areas the Democrats truly(!) have switched.

    You are defending a party that has never done a single thing for anyone except purchase their vote for cold cash. Cold cash cebowen, and not much of it. For anyone to suggest that the Democrats have “helped” anyone is truly preposterous when you look at the conditions in the major welfare cities.

    Further, the Democrats have attempted to put private enterprise out of business with continuous punishment via confiscatory taxation and destructive regulations such as Obamacare and skyrocketing minimum wage requirements for minimal revenue businesses. President Obama’s temporary takeover of General Motors and his permanent takeover of healthcare are a couple of good examples of the Democrats managing the production. And Hillary Clinton’s belief that it takes a village to raise a child is an alarming insight into her “anti-communism” views.

    Moving along, the Democrats realize that we all are not equal at the starting line, but they do not favor equal chances in the slightest. What they favor is equality of outcome. This is known as Affirmative Action. If a Democrat tells you otherwise it is because he believes you to be a fool. I have personally lost employment opportunities because the Affirmative Action quotas mandated a certain number of whites, a certain number of blacks, and a certain number of women (1/3, 1/3, 1/3). They had to pull candidates from the hiring list that had scored lower than I did and these candidates were appointed to the positions. They achieved the Democratic goal of equality of outcome at the expense of equality of chance.

    And the Democrats too favor freedom of religion…as long as it’s building a shrine to the 911 hijackers. And freedom of choice to the Democrats doesn’t apply to Gianna Jessen. She was aborted and survived and has told her story all over the country. She was invited by Republican Representative Ted Harvey to sing the national anthem at the Colorado State House during their consideration of a resolution to honor the 90th anniversary of the local Planned Parenthood chapter. She got through it in spite of abortion-induced cerebral palsy and Rep. Harvey was thoroughly denounced by the Democratic speaker of the House when she learned who Gianna is.

    Another recipient of Democratic “women’s rights” was baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown. Aborted alive by Dr. George Tiller, she survived severely disabled until age 5 years. You can read her story and see her gravestone (with her picture) at the findagrave website.

    And don’t forget Dr. Kermit Gosnell, another champion of the right to choose. Operating his murder clinic in a predominately black neighborhood with the blessing of the Democrats, and considering the 40% abortion rate of black children in New York City it’s pretty hard to believe Republicans are the new Simon Legree.

    Chris, we are not the “Dems of the past”. We have never supported slavery, we have never opposed citizenship for blacks, we have never opposed voting rights for blacks, and we have never NEVER regarded an African-American as 3/5 of a person.

    • The entire parties platforms switched, including its followers. The current republicans and dems are now reverse mirror images of their predecessor. Sure you dont oppose citizenship for blacks, or voting rights, or called them 3/5, those things are largely settled. That does not change that the current KKK is filled with mostly Republicans, which by and large has the largest numbers of southern racists among its ranks.

      Also dont talk about socialism, communism and Marxism, just like other Republicans you have no idea what you talk about. The first 2 are economic policies which, which controls the production in a state, that the dems do not want. They want socialized some things, things that Republicans even want in some cases, Marxism is a combination of Liberal and Conservative policies, it takes both of yall to get that done.

      As for religion, Dems want all religions to be considered equal, but Repubs are not happy unless their religion is number 1. If repubs would stop trying to force their religion on others and suppressing the religion of others that would fall to the wayside.

      I am not sure what failed abortions have to do with this, other then you apparently dont like it when people exercise their freedoms, unless you approve of those freedoms.

      • Ahh, the ad hominem approach. Cant attack the argument so attack the person. The classic logical fallacy. In any case maybe you should read up on Marxism. It requires elements of conservative-ism and liberalism. As for ignorant, I am not the ignorant one here.

      • cebowen, there is no need to attack you. Your own arguments attack you.

        Sure you don’t support slavery…it’s “largely settled”. Too bad for the Democrats. But they’re resilient…they’ve got new ways to control blacks. Cash for votes. It works for lazy whites, so why not blacks?

        Your connection of Republicans to the klan and conservatives to Marxism demonstrates that you will say anything to make your point. I suppose Ronald Reagan was a Marxist? That’s why he brought down everything Marxism ever stood for?

        From Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

        From Ronald Rea…oh, excuse me…from Barak Obama: “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”.

        As to your Republiklan charges, the only “prominent” Republican to ever wear the sheet is David Duke, who left the Democrats and joined the Republicans after failing in a number of political campaigns. He has been thoroughly condemned by virtually the entire Republican Party.

        But if you would say that his party preferences make that party the Klan, that’s fine…in 2004 Duke gave his support to Louisiana Congressional candidate Roy Armstrong, a Democrat. Guess you guys are wearing the sheets again huh?

        And in 2011 John Paul Rogers ran as a mayoral candidate in Lake Wales FL. As a Democrat. Rogers had the distinction of being the leader of the United Klans of America, the group that performed America’s last recorded lynching in 1981, that of African-American Michael Donald.

        The only possible case you could make that the KKK is now a Republican organization is that the lynchings have stopped.

        You are right on one count: I don’t approve of what was done to Gianna and Sarah, and what is being done to nearly half the black race. Apparently you do though. By the way, Hitler–a god to the Klan–promoted the abortion of non-Aryan children.

        That would include Jews and Blacks, the abortion of whom you are free to denounce. Post away…

      • so really all you have is a bunch of strawmen to counter.. Really weak of you.

        First of all I did not say republicans were marxist, but neither are democrats, I stated it takes both of the parties platforms, the worse parts of them, combined to make marxism. Your failure to read and comprehend is not my problem.

        Second almost any Klansman you talk to will be a republican. Notable or not, that is still the case. The hatred of anyone who does not conform to your ideology and your desire to suppress anything none Christian is a breeding ground for them.

        Next spreading the wealth around is not necessarily “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. In fact there are vastly more ways to interpret that then the logical leap you made to that conclusion.

        And to be clear on abortions, it is not a black issue solely, there are about as many whites being aborted as blacks. But keep on playing the race card. Republicans are good at that, and then accusing others of mentioning it later of doing it.

      • So I named a “notable” Republican Klansman (who again supports the Democrats). You haven’t named any, and you certainly don’t have access to voting records. Even if the GOP were the anti-Black party you suggest, the Klan is still anti-Jew and that fact alone places them completely outside of the interests of the GOP.

        Others like you have tried to say that because Hitler supported private enterprise that he was a “right-wing Republican Tea-Party type”. Problem is that while the single issue of supporting private enterprise does put tremendous distance between Hitler and the Dems, he draws back to them in every other way…particularly in his support for abortion.

        Furthermore, your use of the word “hatred” indicates that in your own personal experience your understanding of the word is applicable to “anyone who does not conform to your (own) ideology. Yes, you know your own perspective of hatred.

        And your own failure to read and comprehend is in fact your problem. Where did I say “abortion is a black issue solely”? Gianna Jessen is white and Sarah Brown WAS white. My 2 most prominent examples of Hitler/Democratic atrocities are white, but “it is not a black issue solely”…thank you. That’s what I said.

    • “You are defending a party that has never done a single thing for anyone except purchase their vote for cold cash. ”

      The Republican Party passed Citizens United in Sellout. You cuckold 1% Ayn Rand fanboys support a Oligarchy, that always voted for themselves, and you believe in the supply side mythology and ultra failure of Trickle Down, not even taught in college, but as a joke on Reagan pulling one over on his ignorant base.

      All those lack of ethics, all those fake scandals debunked, all that Benghazi Malulu and birthers for secret muslim dictators, and chemtrails making your guns rust.

      Why can’t you be more ethical? Why weasel wording?

      What is your claim? That Rebubbaklans fought for Civil Rights? Of course they did. Would they now? Ask the Homosexuals or Atheists or Immigrant.

      Did Conservatives fight for any of those things? Of course not. The fought against them. That would make them Libera.

      I am not saying all Republicans are racists, I am saying all racists are conservative.

      Those are facts.

      Class over, son.

      • “all that ‘Benghazi Malulu’ “. That’s how liberal Democrats view the murders of Americans. Well, what would I expect from those who don’t give a damn about millions of unborn children?

      • You guys piled 7 hearings on the tragedy and cheapened their deaths into a sideshow, you leaked their pictures, you retracted random words, then were busted for it, trying to make it look like the CIA retracted things from her email.(As is the nature of a conservative, to lack moral fiber, fear the truth and any ethical standard.) uncovering nothing that we did not know.

        You made it on the level of your other super fails and planting fake scandals, none of which stuck. That means your leaders are all incompetent, making you dumb enough to follow incompetence and stupidity, or they were made up, and when called to the carpet…they fell apart. Here is the complete list of the lies from the party of Duggar family values.

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/chart-obama-conspiracy-theories

        There is only one reason, you dove into Benghazi, and it was to try and find anything, anything at all to finally have something to show for lie, after lie, after made up bigger lie. Birther Certificates, Jade Helm, IRS pilot, Obamacare disinformation, and of course the 75 year old cry of them coming for your cheap ass Wal Mart facsimiles of mutations delivery systems, ‘Muh Guns!.(I myself am a Perazzi man. 27 yard line, AA rank.) Also, a lizard man from mars and secret muslim terrorist from Kenya.

        In 8 years, Rebubbaklans have passed nothing, but tax breaks and favors for the men they suck off every day as is required for your membership in the 1% fanboy club and prayer circle to get that trickle down to kick in after 35 yeas of fail. 30 billion in oil subsidies is good for muh freedums! But we gotta defund the 7 billion for (insert any beneficial infrastructure, assistance, veterans programs or education budget here) because it is killing us, bootstraps and early birds! Everyone can live the dream!

        LOL.

        As for your non sequitur of killing unborn children, that seems very magical and gothic.

        They are not born, they aren’t conscious beings.

        That is like using your are killing the undead, by donating your organs!

        Zombies and spirits are not real bro, and besides…there are 175,000 unwanted children right now, you guys have defunded care for, waiting to be emptied by as many families, of which over 30 million say they are pro life (except when your pro death, you all love that death penalty.)

        The Human consciousness is made up of the electrical and chemical coding and imprints of the tokens we create of the stimuli available to our senses. You do not remember being a sperm, multiplying your cells, or the inside of the womb, because you were still a zygote, a blastocyst, among other stages…accurately described as a parasitic symbiote, mooching off the nutrients and oxygen of the host. Especially bad when violently forced into the womb against the hosts wishes.

        Nice try, go adopt those 175k, then we can talk about your aspirin between the legs idea. Better question is, why do you want Sally Pigtails and Mary Homecomingqueen to died on the cold linoleum of their bathroom in a pool of dark red blood clutching a coathanger, like was all to common prior to roe v wade? Do you hate women, but love the blastocyst? It is smaller than the brain, of a common housefly.

        Priorities and morality son, you need them.

      • Your “malulu” about Benghazi is boring. Hillary blamed congress for underfunding American security in Libya, and then it turns out the Hussein Administration had diverted millions of dollars to shore up Libyan security instead. Hussein Administration said so themselves. Who needs to make stuff up?

        And why don’t you tell us how the administration’s diversion of the funds to the Libyan government worked for our ambassadors? Hmmm?…

        Adopt? Ask the many American couples who have tried to adopt. Abortion has eliminated virtually all potential adoptees. Americans that have enough left over after taxes are paying the Chinese government thousands of dollars to adopt unwanted Chinese children, usually girls.

        You’re one of those who cares more about murderers’ lives than the lives of unborn children like Baby Sarah Elizabeth Brown, reducing them to blastocysts and simple sperm cells, even calling them parasite moochers (you ought to know about moochers…they’re the parasites you liberals give taxpayers’ money to in return for votes).

        No surprise though, that those who sanction legalized murder would oppose the execution of those who commit murder.

        As I stated in a previous post, you can gloat about Sarah’s story at findagrave, and throw darts at her “parasite” picture on her gravestone.

        Maybe you can explain how Baby Sarah wasn’t a person when Dr. George Tiller, waging the Democrats’ War on Unborn Women, injected her with potassium with the unequivocal intention of murdering her. “Unfortunately” non-person Sarah survived for 5 years, disabled and blind, before finally dying from the effects of her mother’s “precious right to make the most deeply personal and intimately private decisions about her own body between herself and her doctor”.

        That’s liberal compassion! Love Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Ted Bundy…hate Baby Sarah. And Gianna Jessen, who has her own website where you can read about how she was aborted alive and is now a disabled adult. Thanks to you and your Civil Rights Democrats.

        Got rid of Strom Thurmond and got George Killer instead. And Kermit Gosnell. I’d say Thurmond at his worst stood head and shoulders above those two. Did you enjoy watching Nancy Pelosi trying to excuse her way out of the Gosnell revelations? Gosnell threw open the doors of America’s junior execution chambers and showed us all what really goes on under cover of the womb. Fully sanctioned by the Civil Rights Democrats.

        Oh, but I suppose you don’t believe in Judgment Day. Better quit preying and pray there ain’t no Hell…

  53. Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is important and all. Nevertheless just imagine if you added some great pictures
    or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”!

    Your content is excellent but with images and video clips, this blog
    could undeniably be one of the most beneficial in its field.
    Wonderful blog!

    • Jesse, can you name one single thing the Democrats ever did for blacks other than giving them hand-outs? The Democratic Party has never done anything that wasn’t designed to increase their own power. When they realized that they had lost their slaves forever, a light went on in their heads. “If blacks are going to vote, well…they might as well vote for us”. So along came welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, forced busing, and a tolerance of violent crime. Welfare was already getting them votes from lazy whites, so why not try it on blacks too? And of course they got the votes.

      And look how their programs have helped–Detroit, Newark, south central Los Angeles. Epidemic drug use (which the liberals initiated in the “just do it” ’60’s), epidemic black on black crime, epidemic murder of unborn black children (about 40% in New York City), and continued unabated abject poverty.

      Do you still want to say the parties have switched places? If you still believe that, then please show me the pro-slavery plank in any Republican Platform since the party’s inception…

      • Well that is kinda a ingenuous question. The current democratic party, in its current form has only be around a few decades, same for the republicans. If you look at it in the form of conservatives vs liberals though you can see a lot of things by the liberals and not much by the conservatives. The flip flop in the parties after the brown v board decision really have a lot of you republicans confused. Most of the post above is correct, except that the Dems up until 1950s were conservatives (aka states rights, anti federalists, and the such). they are now the liberals, and the Republicans are now the Dems of the past.

      • You are looking at names, not actually platforms. In the 1950s/60s the parties switched. This is not really disputable. The current dems are the republicans of the past and vice versus. All you have to do is look at the platforms, states rights, small government. Lincoln and the folks that fought to end slavery and all the other civil rights movements were liberals, not conservatives, by definition.

      • The party ideals have always been the same. The Republicans believe in everyone is equal at the starting line, yet the Democrats believe everyone should be equal at the finish line. The Democrats have always been influenced by marxism, socialism, and communism.

      • That is incorrect. Democrats pre civil rights were pro state, pro small government. That is a far cry from marxism, socialism, and communism. Now that is the Republicans party ideals. Also the dems dont believe everyone should be equal at the starting line, they believe we should all have equal chances, not that we should all have the same things.

        Republicans are only for equality when it comes to what they want. Freedom of religion, as long as it is Christianity. Freedom to make choices for oneself as long as it follows their ideology. Small government, as long as it is big in ways they want it.

      • The democratic party does not want the government to own production or to manage the production. Republicans love to throw the socialism term around, but seems most dont know what it means. In addition you have yet to counter one thing I have stated.

      • The Democrat Party does want to keep their people down. Have you ever looked at Democrat run districts? They are usually poor and they stay that way. That is not the Republicans fault, that would be your Democrats! But hey….. The rich Dems (and there are a lot of them) stay rich and keep getting richer!

      • The rich on both sides stay rich and get richer, but the liberal rich tend to donate more, and more often because they want to and not for tax breaks. Poor areas tend to be liberal because when people are in need they work together, and conservatives are not about working together as equals, only if one is getting the better end.

      • Individual dems donate more, and they do it to help others, where and conservatives tend to do it for the tax breaks, and not to help. Conservatives total more because they have more of the wealth. This according to MIT.

  54. Pingback: The Bearded Patriot | Upside Down America, Part 1

  55. Have you ever considered about including a little bit
    more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and all.
    But imagine if you added some great visuals or videos to give your posts more, “pop”!
    Your content is excellent but with images and clips, this
    website could definitely be one of the greatest in its niche.

    Amazing blog!

  56. Add to the growing list of candidates considering a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 America’s most famous white-power advocate: David Duke.
    A former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan
    Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives
    Republican executive-committee chairman in his district until 2000
    First African-American president – Obama – Democrat

    • Rose, John Paul Rogers is the counter to David Duke, not the other way around. Don’t tell me how the parties have changed and that the Republicans are now the racists. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have never had a pro-slavery or pro-racist plank in their platform. Not ever, Rose. Unless you can find one and show us right here on this forum. I’ll be waiting.

  57. Carter, re-read the last paragraph of the article. It explains the “changes” you referenced. The Democrats, realizing they had lost all of their ability to use, misuse, and abuse African-Americans, had a light suddenly turn on in their heads: “If the Blacks are going to vote, well then…they might as well vote for us”. So they set about arranging programs that would make them look like they were now on the Blacks’ side, while at the same time they knew Republicans would oppose these programs per the programs’ patent unfairness.

    We all know what the programs are…forced bussing, affirmative action, welfare (which the Dems have used to buy votes from many others, not just Blacks). And leniency on crime, which explains the unabated violence in Black communities.

    And most critically, we know these programs created government dependency while doing very little to actually improve the lot of Blacks. Look at the inner cities of Detroit, Chicago, etc. The welfare checks literally rain on those cities and yet the poverty level is cataclysmic. And forced bussing never helped anyone, in fact it shortened the time available for students to study and learn. I know, I have driven deseg. routes in a major city, and I have watched students being forced to ride a bus all over the city until dark, with only enough time to eat and fall asleep when they get home.

    Affirmative action gave jobs to the unqualified and further degraded the self-esteem of those who “benefited”. In Fire Departments for example, candidates were appointed who were at the bottom of the employment testing process, then promoted rapidly up the ladder, sometimes rank after rank and all the way to Fire Chief without any time to learn and gain experience at the lower levels. And while the higher qualified candidates were summarily bypassed. I know of one African-American man who had entered a major city Fire Dept. through a proper, non-discriminatory process and was promoted to Lieutenant and Captain…then, through affirmative action, he was promoted to Battalion Chief and Deputy Chief, all the while in the position of head of personnel–and never working as a fireground command officer (thankfully). And then they made him Chief. How proudly he wore that gold badge that he never earned! I’m sorry to say this but the actual emergency operations of the Dept. had to be conducted by lower ranking officers who actually knew what they were doing.

    This Fire Chief was nothing more than a figurehead (like the Queen of England).

    Furthermore, in some cities minority candidates had achieved good position on promotional examinations, but for moral and ethical reasons had refused affirmative action appointments over more qualified candidates—only to have their promotions denied when their number actually came up! Punishment for bucking the Democrats’ system.

    One more thing on the “parties have changed” idea. As recently as 2011, John Paul Rogers, former Grand Dragon of the United Klans of America–one of the most violent KKK affiliates–ran for mayor of Lake Wales Florida…as a Democrat. His men had performed the last recorded lynching in America (1981, not 1891), that of African-American Michael Donald.

    Democrats would have you believe the Klan has now joined the Tea Party. Well, if they did we know why the lynchings have stopped.

  58. 100 years ago* All I’m trying to say Democrats(more liberal) are faced more on civil liberty’s than the republican part(more conservative)

  59. This article is stupid. But what about republicans today, not 100. The parties definitely change and for reasons too

    • Well I guess it‘s true that the DEMOCRATs *DID* leave the DEMOCRAT party in droves after 1964. But what about the *DIXIECRATS* Carter?

      Did – ANY – of them leave?

      Yep. ONE. Strom Thurmond. And HE was the ONLY one.

      So what about the REPUBLICANS? Did *ANY* of the REPUBLICANS (who sponsored the REPUBLICAN 1957 Civil Rights Act, 1960 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Act, 1963 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Act, and who had FORCED the DIXIECRAT party into a ONE NIGHT rewriting of the 1963 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Bill – to create the 1964 “Democrat” Civil Rights Act – which the MAJORITY of the REPUBLICANS supported, and the MAJORITY of the DEMOCRATS opposed, did any of them – EVER – “Switch Sides” to Democrat?

      No.

      NOT ONE.

      NEVER.

      And just for kicks lets just take a little look-see at the “pro”-civil rights Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1964 “democrat” act.

      See.. there that DemocRat “hero” of civil rights, as he explains to his fellow Dixiecrats that he would no longer be able to keep Blacks from voting this time around (’64) – as his party, the DEMOCRATS, had done with poll taxes, literacy tests, and nullification as they had done to the ’57, ’60, and ’63 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Acts.

      Now let’s just look for some of the the old-family legacy DIXIECRATS, and see where these “red neck” Southern Dixiecrats are today. Here’s just a PARTIAL list of all the old “Red Necks” of the Democrat party over the last 40 years – Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, George McGovern, John Edwards, William Fulbright, Bull Connor, Sam Ervin, Richard Russell, Richard Gephardt,,John Edwards, etc etc etc..

      Look! They (and their children) are ALL Presidents, Vice Presidents,Presidential Candidates, Congressional Medal of Freedom winners, Majority leaders, Speaker Pro Tempore.. and heck, let’s not forget that the fallen hero of Civil Rights JFK had voted AGAINST anti-lynching legislation as a Democrat Senator, nor that FDR sent a boat of escaping Jews back to the Nazis and appointed Hugo Black – of the Ku Klux Klan – TO THE SUPREME COURT..

      Can now explain how – ALL – these red neck old school power broker Dixiecrats, and their children are STILL the very heart of the Democrat Party?

      And that NONE of them is a Republican?

      I’m sure you have an EXCELLENT explanation.. don’t you Carter? You don’t??

      Golly.. and YOU almost just fooled me too!

      Here’s the REPUBLICAN list of “switched” Dixiecrats:

      N/A. You don’t need a list for one man.

      Ok maybe if you like we can do this by the numbers. That’s even easier because the RACISTS of the DIXIECRAT party all signed a special document called “The Southern Manifesto”, where the DIXIECRAT signers slogan was: “Segregation Yesterday, Segregation Today, Segregation FOREVER!”. Now let’s see… 101 Congressmen signed it. And WOW! Would you look at that!,A full 99 of the 101 signers were DEMOCRAT – and great many of which were NOT from the South.. Only 2 Republicans signed it – and both were 1-term nobody Jr. Congressmen from deep in the DEMOCRAT “Solid South”. Now of those 99 Democrats who put their name on that last, MOST didn’t retire!

      In fact they STAYED in government – and only ONE of them EVER “switched” party affiliation. Strom Thurmond – who as it turns out had been in a secret 40 year love affair with a Black woman, had a child with her, and supported that child all the way through college. And that’s WHY HE’s the only one you Devilrats can even name lol.

      OK, but WHY today are so many Blacks KlanoRat and WHY does the Deep South now vote Republican?

      The simple answer is that SOUTH votes Republican because the fight over Blacks voting (a.k,a. – the “Civil Right” in question) WAS OVER.

      Any Black who wanted to was going to vote. And every one of the “Solid South” Dixiecrat states were already forcibly desegregated, and NO ONE – not even Al Gore Sr. Lyndon Johnson, or Robert Dodd could stop it or roll it back. So with Civil Rights no longer a votable issue, and the great bastions of the Dixiecrat party now touting acid, abortion, and amnesty and as their party platform, the South left them flat..

      Well what about the Black vote? Well that’s a much more sinister story…

      You see… When THE DEMOCRATS LOST the Civil rights battle, Lyndon Johnson..

      ..had a plan. He would re-institute the PLANTATION SYSTEM with which Democrat party had controlled Blacks for 400 years, and institute it over the entire nation. He called this plan (Welfare, food stamps, public housing, public health care, cash assistance, etc etc) the “Great Society”. So let’s recap. What year did the Democrats LOSE the Civil Rights struggle? 1964. What year did Lyndon Johnson

      create the “”Great Society” = 1964.

      Golly… Do you see it yet?

      Simultaneously, at the very same time, Occupy Wall Street (then called “hippies”) was community organized to push drug addiction and to destroy the Black family by pushing “free love” (i.e. – illegitimacy and fatherless Black homes) and their “you don’t need a man” rhetoric to push Black MEN from the homes and leaving desperate Black women and children completely dependent on the new “Great” Plantation System.

      Now if THAT isn’t “convincing enough” for you.. I’ll do you one further… WHAT is the NEW rally cry of the NEW community organized Occupy Wall Street government “hippy”?

      We are the 99%!

      (Why does that matter?) – because they are the MAJORITY!

      So they can ignore rights and laws? Why? It’s for the “greater good”, besides, they’re just.. “the 1%”

      And guess what the magic word for “the 1%” is?

      That’s right – M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y

      So why don’t you tell me DIXIECRAT – how can you be for “the 99%” and for the MINORITY both?

      Answer: You can’t.

      Or did you REALLY suppose we’d buy into the notion that a bunch of “God doesn’t exist” “Right and Wrong are “subjective” Darwin => “Survival of the Fittest” <= evolutionists were really all about "charity" HA.

      And here's where I'll end this report. You Nazi progressive "white man's burden" corporation and bank regulating (i.e. literal "fascist") baby killing Christ hating disinformation spreading scum bag.abortionist.

      Thank you!

      And have a GREAT day 🙂

  60. trg “definitely” knows more racist Republicans than racist Democrats. The Democrats would agree. Some of them have even been saying that the KKK votes Republican today.

    As I said to Geoff…back up your quote with facts. Not innuendo about how you dislike someone’s conservative political views and that makes them a racist.

    Here are some facts: As recently as 2011, Democrat John Paul Rogers was a candidate for mayor of Lake Wales, Florida. Rogers is a former leader of the United Klans of America, the particular branch of the KKK that conducted the final recorded lynching in America (in 1981), that of African-American Michael Donald.

    In 1989 David Duke, also a former leader of the KKK, disappointed with the Communist leanings of the Democratic Party, left the Democrats and joined the Republicans.

    When was that last lynching…1981? Yeah, it seems that when the KKK guys joined the Republicans, the lynchings stopped.

    Maybe the klan would like to help us stop the Democratic-led slaughter by abortion of 40% of the African-American race too.

  61. I would like to challenge Geoff to show us any Republican Party/Tea Party Platform that has ever endorsed slavery. The 1856 Democratic Party Platform did. The Republicans never did. The Democrats, being the Party of the Confederacy, fully endorsed slavery, and when they lost they realized that if the slaves were going to vote…well, they might as well vote for the Democrats. So they gave them a little something (reminiscent of LBJ’s promise to “give ‘the Negros’ a little something, not enough to make a difference, just enough to quiet them down.”). Welfare, Food Stamps, and Quotas. And Detroit. And Newark.

    In the meantime some of the Southern Democrats joined the Republicans, not (as is lied again and again) because the Republicans are now the Party of Racism, but in fact because, like the Republicans (and absolutely unlike the “heroic” Northern Democrats), the Southern Democrats opposed the new enemy…Communism. That’s the only reason they joined us. The ’64 Civil Rights Act and everything else the African-Americans got that ever did them anything good came from the Republicans. Period. And how many of those Southern Democrats Turned Republican are alive today? And still in office?

    Now Geoff, you show me the evidence that the Tea Party wants to return to Confederate Democratic Slavery. You said we’ve “switched” ( a quote from you). So back up your quote with facts.

  62. The parties switched! The dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and other southern dixiecrats switched parties, the southern dixiecrats turned into republicans! The Republican party of Lincoln is now the democratic party, liberals have done progressive things in this country where as the conservatives want to take us back to the 50’s! This article is lacking serious history lessons!

      • I’m sorry but this is where you are wrong. The parties have switched, the democrats are NOT like they were in 1800’s. I definately know more racist republicans that democrats.Not to mention the republican vs. democrat during that time is a bit skewed based on north, south and wealth.

      • I guess a who is being a racist varies on who’s eyes you are looking through. A lot of folks see racism in a pickle jar these days. Also, people have a hard time seeing Blacks as being racist too. Anyone can be a racist!

      • Ya….. MLK was a (R). So were my black aunties and uncles until the “Southern Strategy” (everyone please Google it!!…) came along, then most (all)black folks switched parties very smartly in their own best interests. One might want to compare that to Arlen Specter in PA or Olympia Snowe in ME, who was a (R) for years till the (R) went Waaaaaay too far towards the left…..
        While the names are technically correct, your political history has many, many, many flaws………. may I suggest a U.S. political history course from your local Community College………
        A simple flaw in the logic would be the old (D) quote from George Wallace which stated: “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth (about as racist as it gets…), I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”…… pre Southern Strategy…..
        History flawed by the seeder indeed…….

      • MLK Senior was a Republican. Not Jr…. Taking a class at a community college may not be a good thing. Googling doesn’t help either! Jr never registered as a Republican and if you go off of history and his actual words, he did not care for either political party. Watch what you Google and make sure it is actually factual!

      • Let’s assume all of your facts are true. Still you presented a VERY ONE-SIDED view of history. No mention of Hubert Humphrey’s speech at the 1948 Democratic convention; no mention that Harry Truman desegregated the US Armed Forces in 1948 by executive order; no mention that if you control for geography the facts show that conservative Southerners (a.k.a Dixiecrats) deserted the Democratic Party and ran into the arms of the Republican Party, including David Duke in 1989. It also ignores the very nature of the liberal/conservative political spectrum with liberals normally more open to political change while conservatives generally support the status quo and more “traditional values.” Yet you try to sell the public that the Republican Party is the savior of the civil rights movement? ROFLMAO You would be laughed out of any convention of history professors.

    • NAME the the other DIXIECRAT who switched party liar!

      NAME – ONE – BESIDES STROM THURMOND who ever left the Democrat party..

      If you can do that – name even ONE other Dixiecrat who switched parties – then YOU can give the history lesson.

      Here’s a PARTIAL LIST of Democrat Presidential Candidates, VP Candidates, Speaker Pro Tempores, House Leaders, Congressional “Medal of Freedom” award winners, etc – i.e. – the DIXIECRATS (and their children) who stayed:

      Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, George McGovern, John Edwards, William Fulbright, Bull Connor, Sam Ervin, Richard Russell, Richard Gephardt,,John Edwards, etc etc etc.

      If fact, EVERY “RED NECK” with a racist connection in government from before 1964 until today is STILL in your party!

      I guess that’s why both Clinton and Obama had a Ku Klux Klan “Grand Kleagle” (and KKK recruiter) – Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia – as their Speaker Pro Tempore

      (3rd most powerful man in government, 3 heart beats away from the Presidency)

  63. Liberals have never done anything for African-Americans. Look at Detroit and other primarily African-American cities. Liberals have given them miniscule handouts which have resulted in dependency on big government. In other words, Liberals have purchased the African-American vote. But these cities are in shambles, replete with arson and murder running at astronomical levels. And violence in the African-American communities is excused, with the result being that Black-on-Black violence is at an all-time high. Furthermore, the rate of abortion of unborn Black children is higher than any other race (check out Dr. Kermit Gosnell. And check out New York City, where 40% of African-American babies are aborted). What kind of progress is this, and what kind of a fool would call it “progress” at all? And it comes from the American political Left, the heart and soul of today’s contemporary Democratic Party. Furthermore, folks, get your facts straight. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that pro-slavery Democrats joined the Republicans because of the outcome of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Just plain completely nuts! Goldwater’s draw to them was his opposition to patently unfair practices such as forced busing, not any support for slavery and/or discrimination. As a matter of fact, even Republicans who opposed the CRA opposed it because of serious Constitutional concerns, not the imagined hatred of the color Black. Not to mention Goldwater and the Republicans stood against encroaching Communism, something the Democrats have been steadily embracing right up to our current president who wants to “spread the wealth around” (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need!). You can’t make the Republicans racists when they aren’t, no matter how much it benefits you politically.

    • Really?! That is total b.s! Look at all the racist things that have come out of the republicans own mouths and the tea party racism! I can list endless quotes of republican and tea party leaders making racist comments and lets not even get into all the racism from their supporters it’s even worse and more prevalent!

      • A year later and we still wait for you: “I can list endless quotes of republican and tea party leaders making racist comments and lets not even get into all the racism from their supporters it’s even worse and more prevalent!” Well???

      • I guess you’ll keep waiting. I said a long time ago that every party has their ignorant. This is a blog piece, not a book that details out every single thing. It goes over the history in general. The left did not support civil rights at the time. There are actually very few flip floppers on the Right. Also, please don’t forget that the term Racist has been blurred by the Left! Many people think that some things are racist now and they actually are not!

      • Black people are the racists! 90% of blacks are racists and usually out of ignorance like your silly, unsophisticated and “emotional” comments. Yeah, whites used to be racist, but no longer. I think 90% of white people bend over backwards for ANY person working to get ahead as long as they 1) show up, 2) don’t lie all the time, 3) have a good attitude, 4) open to improvement and learning (not arrogant pricks), 5) works hard without complaint, and 6) don’t have an “entitlement” mentality that somehow the world owes them a favor.

        Geoff, I can tell that you’re not going very far. No wonder you’re so bitter. You have a real attitude problem that’s NEVER going to work. NEVER! Wake the fuck up!

  64. I tend to agree with some of the comments. The division seems to be between political parties in the 19th and 20th centuries but not about the thinking of forward-looking people.Pres Obama is a Democrat because he has apparently read the platforms of the dominant political parties and as a constitutional expert, he could not in good conscience have become a member of the Republican Party as it is now in the 21st century. It’s important to know the thinking of current political leaders.
    I do disagree about Pres. Johnson. Everette Dirkson alone could not have enacted the Civil Rights Act. Lyndon Johnson as I recall reading during his term was defiled, because he effected this Law as one of the most powerful and skillful Democrats of the 20th century. Why does anyone think that John Kennedy chose Johnson as VP? The South regarded Johnson as a traitor to southern values (and he was!).The Vietnam War was not his only “cross to bear.” Johnson’s role in changing the centers of power has been very underestimated. At the time it was said that Johnson was “heading in the wrong direction” because he change the power bases of citizens. Johnson also added a “sur-tax” to pay for the Vietnam War.

    Things have indeed continued to change. The Republicans and their Teaparty counterparts along with the super wealthy Koch Brothers are determined to eradicate the American middle class and to remove the power of the middle class which now includes many people of color. Pres. Obama has created programs to preserve the middle class and has cut down government size to what it was during Eisenhower’s term. Eisenhower also taxed income at the rate of 91% for the wealthiest (yes, the wealthiest paid this because both WWII and Korean Wars had to be paid for). That’s another reason that the USA has a large debt even though Pres. Obama has also cut the growth of the debt. The Republicans now want to tax the middle class to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The Republican dominated House of Representatives misrepresents that the USA has a “spending” problem. The truth is that the USA has a taxation problem. Multi-billionaires pay only 35% since Ronald Reagan took office (except during the terms of Clinton who increased taxes on top incomes). Matters are not as simple as this email would lead one to think though the email is factual, and I for one am glad to see that. It’s important to be alert to preserve our beloved country because knowledge is power and so many are buried under the 24/7 television propaganda of that immigrant multi-billionaire Rupert Murdock who owns Fox Television and the Wall Street Journal. One also has to be careful of emails designed to generate hate for other segments of our society perceived to need hand-outs (which don’t rival the amounts handed to corporations.) (Think financial companies and Wall Street.) We are all in this together and we as citizens must support one another to “keep our republic.”

    • Well thought out response. It’s sad to see people read history facts and not delve into them more. it’s not “Dem V Rep” it’s really more of an “poor” vrs “rich” history in this country. Whites with wealth vrs blacks with little money, or poor workers with no rights vrs wealthly business owners, we now call it the 99% but it’s no different. The gap is widening and the rich in both parties want to push it further apart. the tax rates of the upper 1% are ridiculous. and having lived in a city where we raised the minimum wage to a “living wage” level, I can tell you that it had a positive effect. people that argue otherwise are idiots and ignore the facts

    • IF Kennedy had chosen another VP, he would still be alive today.

      And LBJ didn’t “betray” the DIXIECRAT party when THE DEMOCRATS LOST the Civil Rights Struggle in 1964:

      He just had a different strategy than they did.

      He KNEW THE DEMOCRATS LOST THE CIVIL RIGHTS WAR IN 1964,

      In response, LBJ decided that the DIXIECRATS re-institute the PLANTATION SYSTEM with which Democrat party had controlled Blacks for 400 years, and institute it over the entire nation. He called this plan (Welfare, food stamps, public housing, public health care, cash assistance, etc etc) the “Great Society”. So let’s recap. What year did the Democrats LOSE the Civil Rights struggle? 1964. What year did Lyndon Johnson

      create the “”Great Society” = 1964.

      Golly… THE DEMOCRATS LOST the Civil Rights Struggle and started the “Great Society” PLANTATION SYSTEM at the very same time… Do you get it yet?

      Simultaneously, at the very same time, the DIXIECRAT “community organized” the Occupy Wall Street movement (called “hippies” the first time around) to push drugs, alcoholism, and addiction into the inner cities, and to destroy the Black family by pushing “free love” (i.e. – illegitimacy and fatherless Black homes) and their “you don’t need a man” rhetoric to push Black MEN from the home and make Black women and children completely dependent on the new “Great” Plantation System.

      Gee.. aren’t you people wonderful.

      A bunch of Christ hating Dixiecrat Darwinist “Survival of the Fittest” “idealists” who “just want to help the poor” by promoting abortions, fatherless-ness, violence, poverty, illegitimacy, and drugs .

  65. The one thing left out is the most important. You compare democrats to republicans, but you do not compare liberals to conservatives. If you look back in history, and SE the facts about the men, you’ll see that all the good things you attribute to the Republican Party came from when it was the progressive party, and all the negatives you point out of democrats, is when they were the Conservative party. Leave republican and democrat out, and do the research on the same era with progressives vs. conservatives. The picture that comes out shows that, no matter oh the parties have changed, it has always been the conservative south that has been against equality.

    • Filthy liar.

      NO DIXIECRAT – other – than Strom Thurmond – ever – left the Democrat party. Nor did any Northern Christian Abolitionist Conservative Republican who supported the Civil Rights Act – EVER – become a Democrat.

      See, there ISN’T a “conservative” party. That’s just disinformation.

      Just like when Progressive Democrats started calling themselves “Liberal” – their EXACT political opposites and enemies – from 1776 – 1945, and bring all their utopian ponzi schemes, eugenic darwinist racist “planned parenthood” organization, trade union violence with them.

      It’s the very same trick the RED Socialist, RED Communist, RED Chinese loving, RED diaper doper baby, RED’s pulled when they expropriated the forever associated “BLUE State” label from the Republicans.

      All you’re doing is trying to muddy the water and RUN from YOUR past, while you simultaneously try to STEAL credit for ours – even up to and including our founder Abraham Lincoln.

      And what does the Scripture (that you HATE) call Satan? A LIAR. And an ACCUSER. And so it is, because that is EXACTLY what every in-the-know Democrat is.

    • Today’s Democrat Party is the Progressive Party. Progressive is a term better understood as Socialist. How is that working out. And I wouldn’t brag about the Progressive Movement. It was a Progressive Teddy Roosevelt that created the government land grab called National Parks System. “The Constitution … allows the federal government to possess land in three forms: territories, enclaves and other property. Territories referred to land that was owned by the federal government but had not been formally made into states. Enclaves referred to land within a state that was owned by the federal government for essential purposes such as ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards.’ Other property refers to land holdings for enumerated purposes, and gives the federal government limited discretion to possess land.

      However, the Constitution does not authorize permanent land-grabs by the federal government. It authorizes Congress to make “all needful Rules and Regulations” pertaining to land. ‘Needful’ was a word carefully chosen to indicate that the regulatory power only expanded to powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The feds were expected to sell off non-essential land and distribute the subsequent monies in ways that benefited the public good such as paying off the debt or tax cuts.

      The current regime of federal land management is blatantly unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended to create a Republic where the feds could impose draconian fees on peaceful individuals and force them from the land. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the arrangement that the Constitution was written to prevent, as it clearly violates the principles of fiduciary government, sympathy and independence.” (from the Tenth Amendment Center, ‘Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional?’) It is still grabbing land today and has spawned such government controls systems as the EPA, wetlands preservation legislation, etc.
      FDR was a Progressive, and his New Deal was the beginning of Government tax and spend policies that have continued to grow to this day. LBJ’s New Society was an offspring.

  66. I enjoyed reading your artificial very much. I think you should run for our next President. You sound like you have it all together.

  67. Your analysis is a bit off-kilter. Recent Southern Democrats, as you note fairly, carried the legacy (and racism) of slaveholders and secessionists. In the 1960s and 70s, most of these Democrats switched to the Republican Party. You won’t find the remnants of historic northern Republican anti-slavery values in today’s southern Republicans.

    And the Republicans of the 1960s and 70s who fought for civil rights would be considered too liberal for the modern Republican Party, and could not get elected to Congress. The fighters for civil rights are now allied with the modern Democratic Party.

    And if I were wrong, it would be easy for you to prove. All you would have to do is find the modern political contests in which the Republican candidates held positions on civil rights more favorable to minorities of any stripe than his or her Democratic opponent.

    Party of Lincoln, yes. Party of modern civil rights, I am afraid not.

    • David,

      I disagree with your assessment. Your point about southerners associating themselves with the “Modern Republican Party” is mostly a matter of Liberty, not switching parties because as you suggest the “Republicans are the modern party of racism”. All of today’s controversial issues, from abortion, to immigration are designed to polarize the American voters. We have all been put into little containers with these issues, bombarded with media propaganda and the 2 party establishment fights over the containers by spending the other containers income. That’s why polling and campaign buses are so important, yet you may never even see a candidate because he knows he has you locked in a container. There are certainly racists on both ends of the spectrum today, but for lords sake we have a biracial president. It is no longer about civil rights, its about protecting AMERICAN’S CIVIL LIBERTIES. A “PATRIOT” is any person who embraces the American dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and is willing to do whatever it takes to make sure you and I can continue to live that life. Patriots come from both parties. Their numbers are growing every day as it becomes more clear that all the American people are being robbed of that concept. This country will persevere as the number of patriots grow. Because the establishment fears these people and can not allow Americans values to undermine the daily theft of American Liberties, you may have come to know these people as “teabaggers”, I have come to know them as my fellow patriots.

      Regards,
      Scott

    • Reaaaaally David Rubenstein.

      Most of the Democrats “switched sides” in the 1960’s and 70’s? (Because when the DEMOCRATS *LOST* the Civil Rights Struggle in 1964 as it was “half time” I suppose)

      Well I guess that ‘s true. The DEMOCRATs *DID* leave the DEMOCRAT party in droves. But what about the *DIXIECRATS*?

      Did – ANY – of them leave?

      Yep. ONE. Strom Thurmond. End of list.

      And what about the REPUBLICANS? Did *ANY* of the REPUBLICANS (who sponsored the REPUBLICAN 1957 Civil Rights Act, 1960 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Act, 1963 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Act, and who had FORCED the DIXIECRAT party into a ONE NIGHT rewriting of the 1963 REPUBLICAN Civil Rights Bill – to create the 1964 “Democrat” Civil Rights Act – which the MAJORITY of the REPUBLICANS supported, and the MAJORITY of the DEMOCRATS opposed, did any of them – EVER – Switch to Democrat?

      No.

      NOT ONE.

      NEVER.

      And just for kicks lets just take a little look-see at the “pro”-civil rights Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1964 “democrat” act.

      See.. there that DemocRat “hero” of civil rights is, as he explains to his fellow Dixiecrats that he would no longer be able to keep Blacks from voting this time around (’64) – as his party, the DEMOCRATS, had done with poll taxes, and nullification to the ’57, ’60, and ’63 REPUBLICAN CRA’s.

      And now let’s just look for some of the the old-family legacy DIXIECRATS, and see where these “red neck” Southern Dixiecrats are today. Here’s just a PARTIAL list of all the old “Red Necks” of the Democrat party over the last 40 years – Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, George McGovern, John Edwards, William Fulbright, Bull Connor, Sam Ervin, Richard Russell, Richard Gephardt,,John Edwards, etc etc etc..

      Presidents, Vice Presidents,Presidential Candidates, Congressional Medal of Freedom winners, Majority leaders, Speaker Pro Tempore.. and heck, let’s not forget that the fallen hero of Civil Rights JFK had voted AGAINST anti-lynching legislation as a Democrat Senator.

      Can you notice how ALL these red neck old school power broker Dixiecrats, or their children are STILL the very heart of the Democrat Party? And NONE of them is a Republican?

      Golly.. and YOU almost fooled me too!

      Here’s the REPUBLICAN list:

      N/A. You don’t need a list for one man.

      Or maybe if you like we can do this by the numbers. That’s easier than you think because the RACISTS of the DIXIECRAT party all signed a Document called “The Southern Manifesto”, which had the sacred slogan: “Segregation Yesterday, Segregation Today, Segregation FOREVER!”. Let’s see… 101 Congressmen signed it. And WOW! Would you look at that!,A full 99 of the 101 signers were DEMOCRAT – and great many of the number were NOT from the South.. Only 2 Republicans signed it – and both were 1-term nobody Jr. Congressmen. Now of those 99 Democrats who put their name on that last, MOST stayed in government – and only ONE of them EVER “switched” party affiliation. Strom Thurmond – who as it turns out had been in a secret 40 year love affair with a Black woman, had a child with her, and supported that child all the way through college. And HE’s the only one you Devilrats said didn’t change his mind lol.

      OK, but WHY today are so many Blacks Democrat, and WHY does the South now vote Republican?

      The simple answer is that SOUTH votes Republican because Blacks voting (a.k,a. – the “Civil Right” in question) had been decided. Blacks were all going to vote. The “Solid South” Dixiecrat states were all being forcibly desegregated, and NO ONE – not even Al Gore Sr. Lyndon Johnson, or Robert Dodd could stop it. Now with Civil Rights no longer a votable issue, and the bastions of the Dixiecrat party now touting acid, abortion, and amnesty and destroying America as their party platform, the choice was easy.

      And the Black vote? Well that’s a much more sinister story…

      You see… When THE DEMOCRATS LOST the Civil rights battle, Lyndon Johnson..

      ..had a plan. He would re-institute the PLANTATION SYSTEM with which Democrat party had controlled Blacks for 400 years, and institute it over the entire nation. He called this plan (Welfare, food stamps, public housing, public health care, cash assistance, etc etc) the “Great Society”. So let’s recap. What year did the Democrats LOSE the Civil Rights struggle? 1964. What year did Lyndon Johnson

      create the “”Great Society” = 1964.

      Golly… Do you get it yet?

      Simultaneously, at the very same time, Occupy Wall Street (then called “hippies”) was community organized to push drug addiction and to destroy the Black family by pushing “free love” (i.e. – illegitimacy and fatherless Black homes) and their “you don’t need a man” rhetoric to push Black MEN from the home and make Black women and children completely dependent on the new “Great” Plantation System.

      And if THAT isn’t “convincing enough” for you.. WHAT is the NEW rally cry of the NEW community organized Occupy Wall Street government “hippy”?

      We are the 99%! And why does that matter?

      We can ignore rights and laws? Why? Well they’re just the “1%”

      And guess what the magic word for “the 1%” is?

      That’s right – M-I-N-O-R-I-T-Y

      So why don’t you tell me DIXIECRAT – how can you be for “the 99%” and for the MINORITY both?

      Answer: You can’t.

      Or did you REALLY suppose we’d buy into the notion that a bunch of “God doesn’t exist” “Right and Wrong are “subjective” Darwin => “Survival of the Fittest” <= evolutionists were really all about "charity" HA.

      And here's where I'll end this report. You Nazi progressive "white man's burden" corporation and bank regulating (i.e. literal "fascist") baby killing Christ hating disinformation spreading scum bag.abortionist.

      Thank you!

      And have a great day 🙂

    • Mr. Rubenstein, How wrong you are. A said, today’s “civil rights” are just hand outs from the government. As one of the current black leaders, Al Sharpton just said “Black men need welfare to succeed in this country.” Now if you do not see the inherent racism in that statement you are blind.

      Republicans have always believed in equality and still do. They do not believe, as many democrats, that people need carve-outs for their specific rights here or there. Republicans do not believe in the need to divide this country by specific groups as democrats do. Republicans believe that any American can succeed here with hard work. We do not think everyone needs the government to succeed. Your so clled civil rights bills recently were just more enslavement to the democrat party, not with chains and laws but with much more insidious entrapment of welfare and lies.

      • Tom, I’m not sure if you are responding to Mr. Rubenstein or Mr. Rodrigues.

        But since I hadn’t read Mr. Rodrigues comment before I need to respond to Sharpton’s statement
        that “Black men need welfare to succeed in this country”. Is welfare truly their only source of the crumbs that fall from those nasty Republicans’ table?

        How can any man, black or white, make such a statement and still be revered as a national leader by so many black men?

        The black men I know work, and take their wives and children to the local fundamental Baptist Church. Suits, ties, and the whole nine yards. They’re family men and they are certainly better role models for young black men than Al Sharpton is.

    • David,
      Today’s “Civil Right Movement” is a shell of the movement of Dr. M.L. King of the 60’s. Today’s movement is nothing more than an entitlement mechanism designed to elect big government Leftists through influence peddling. The likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the face of the movement, and their extortionist tactics are used to line their pockets and deliver votes to the Democratic Party, The Democratic Party passes out entitlements designed to garner votes and weaken the will and integrity of the impoverished. They promise and provide those in need enough to allow them to barely survive in their inner city ghettos, while convincing them they cannot make it in this country of opportunity because “The Man” will keep them down. It is no longer a movement, it is a political scheme.

  68. Absolutely fantastic article. Everything we need to know in a precise and concise format. Ye shall know the truth and the truth you know will set you free. Keep going Kuuleme until all are free.

  69. There is a myth out there that the parties switched ideologies. that the republicans of the 1850’s is now the democrats of today. I can find no evidence of that anywhere. any insight would help on this issue.

    • Because the Left, through their control of media, has- over the decades- converted the meaning of civil rights into the pursuit and/or retention of entitlements. Which is an incredibly racist thing to do and has been done in a way to destory the dependent families (broen homes have financial incentives). Government dependency takes AWAY from civil rights, it does NOT add to them.

    • Melvin, I have attached below information from Wikipedia. You can go to the link and read more.
      The Republican Party, also commonly called the GOP (for “Grand Old Party”), is the second oldest existing political party in the United States after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy. The Party had almost no presence in the South, but by 1858 in the North it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.

      With its election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and its success in guiding the Union to victory and abolishing slavery, it came to dominate the national political scene until 1932. The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, small business owners, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs to protect factory workers and grow industry faster.

      Under William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, it emphasized an expansive foreign policy. The GOP lost its majorities during the Great Depression (1929–40). Instead, the Democrats under Franklin D. Roosevelt formed a winning “New Deal” coalition, which was dominant from 1932 through 1964. That coalition collapsed in the mid-1960s, partly because of white Southern Democrats’ disaffection with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republicans resurged, winning five of the six presidential elections 1968 to 1988, with Ronald Reagan as the party’s iconic conservative hero. In recent times though, from 1992 to 2012, the Republican candidate has been elected to the White House in only two of the six presidential elections – and only in one out of those six elections, in 2004, did he win the popular vote.

      The GOP expanded its base throughout the South after 1968 (excepting 1976), largely due to its strength among socially conservative white Evangelical Protestants and traditionalist Roman Catholics. As white Democrats in the South lost dominance of the Democratic Party once federal courts declared the Democratic White Primary elections unconstitutional, the region began more taking on the two-party apparatus which characterized most of the nation. The Republican Party’s central leader by 1980 was Ronald Reagan, whose conservative policies called for reduced government spending and regulation, lower taxes, and a strong anti-Soviet foreign policy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

  70. I love you so much sister! I try to make these things go viral, but our people aren’t listening or reading. Thanks for posting and I’ll keep sharing.

  71. The facts do not lie….but, the Republican party of yesteryear is not the same Republican party of current times. And haven’t been since the days of Nixon. I don’t vote for a party, I vote for the person. I voted for Gore in 2000, George W. in 2004, & Obama in 2008. Their party had nothing to do with it; for me its all about the issues at hand and how they plan to take them on. If you vote along party lines w/o research, you’re just as big a fool.

    • Well put. A great many of the commentators here seem all too eager to ignore the moral abominations of this new Republican Party. They also seem to forget that David Duke was a front man for the KKK, and a Republican. But the main error in this “article” is that the author doesn’t do enough to put this data into context. Because of this oversight, or was it willful deceit, right-wingers take this data and extrapolate a whopping conceit that their party owns the civil rights struggle, and represents the interests of African Americans in a way that they imagine is “better” than the way Democrats do. That is an incredible delusion. Why? The author makes a fundamental mistake, perhaps a mistake of omission, or naivete, but perhaps she knew exactly how she wanted to mislead readers. That mistake? She labeled the proponents of equal rights “Republicans” and the opponents “Democrats.” The correct labels are “racists” and “equal rights advocates.” After the Civil War, most racists happen to belong to the Democratic Party, and the equal rights advocates belonged to the Republican Party. Missing from this article is a vital piece of information: as the Civil Rights struggle heated up in the 1960s, those racists who happened to be members of the Democratic Party remained so opposed to genuine equality for African Americans that they switched parties. Surely some of the commentators here know that the Southern States were once overwhelmingly Democratic. Hopefully these same commentators also know this is no longer true. So, the misleading premise here, one that I hope the author did not intend to spread, but was merely unaware of, is that the Republican Party that Lincoln belonged to has any real moral or ethical continuity with the Republican Party of today. Lincoln, were he alive today, would never be nominated to run as a Republican, and he would have plenty to say about the obscenity of income inequality, “to-big-to-fail” banks, right-to-work bullshit, and trickle-down idiocy, all the spawn of a greedy, money-centered, materialistic Republican Party.These are no patriots. The author may be at the start of a journey into intellectual enlightenment, but the path is long and arduous. A true intellectual must be willing to weigh legitimate evidence, even that which refutes or discredits personal biases, and to give accurate context to data. Tough job, but a scholar with integrity strives to be accurate.

      • The funny thing is that David Duke and his family were long time Democrats. He did join the Republican Party but it was short lived. He ran on the Republican ticket and failed. Just because people jump from ship to ship doesn’t mean they have changed. Anyone can register in a different party at any given time. Although David Duke jumped on the Republican ship his democratic and racist views never changed. And it was no mistake to label the democrat party as the racists party at the time. If you look at the numbers of the vote. The Democrats were the ones that did not want civil rights past! Don’t try to play the spin game here. It will not work.

      • All of Mr. McKillen’s charges against today’s Republican Party are dealt with in the continuing posts on this thread. So we have to start the new year by rehashing the same debate all over again.

        First of all…for the umpteenth time…the only Democratic senator who voted against the 1964 CRA and then switched parties was Strom Thurmond. He wanted to support Goldwater’s candidacy against LBJ, one of the few Democrats who supported the CRA and only because he had the political vision to recognize that if he couldn’t have slaves then he might as well have the slaves’ votes. But Goldwater, unlike the claims of Democrats, opposed the CRA on entirely non-racial grounds. His concern was that the CRA imposed unconstitutional requirements on employers. That was the only concern any Republican had with the CRA.

        Today’s Democrats have twisted Goldwater’s position in order to brand him a racist, and they use the same tack to brand all Republicans as racists. If you oppose any specific legislation the Democrats label as beneficial to minorities then you are a racist. Welfare, forced busing, affirmative action…

        If the Democrats say Soviet Communism under Stalin would benefit minorities then you are a racist if you advocated tearing down the Berlin Wall.

        The “switched parties” lie really is pretty clever when you think about it, and a route used in court by criminals trying to frame someone else for their own crimes. In California Richard Allen Davis who had murdered 12-year old Polly Klaas, told the court that Polly had begged him “just don’t do me like my dad”.

        Just don’t do me like my dad.

        Just don’t be a racist like the Republicans.

        The PEW Research Center issued statistics taken since 1975 which showed the real “switching places”… that 13 million southerners have moved north, while 19 million northerners have moved south. So, going on the assumption that all 1964 southern racists are still alive and voting, this would place many of them right in the middle of liberal New England today. And New York.

        Case in point, guess what Southern Democrat turned “Republican” is once again supporting the Democrats?

        David Duke recently endorsed the candidacy of African-American and anti-Israel New York Democrat Charles Barron, saying “I certainly agree with Barron that Israel is the worst rogue, terrorist state on earth”. Hatred of Israel is the commonality today’s Democrats have with their very own KKK.

        Again, if they can’t have slaves…

    • Hey Jay Tee, How is that Obama vote looking today?? If you agree with his actions and his policies, you are a Leftist. So your “party lines w/o research” comment rings hollow.

  72. Kuuleme! Thank you so very much for disseminating this very important and most often neglected information. Those who read this information can no longer claim ignorance if they continue to vote Democrat. If the majority of Americans of African descent continue to vote Democrat after reading this history lesson, one can only think of those immortal words uttered by Forrest Gump: “Stupid is, stupid does.”

    • Thank you! I hope that by people reading it, they may not like it, but at least they will know the truth!! Education is a powerful thing IF you are being educated with accurate truths!!!

  73. Funny how the public school system forgets to mention any of this stuff in history class. Thank you for all your research.

    • Gee Bryan (it), your text book that is failed to mention Lincoln was a republican? It did not mention the radical republicans? How then even if their intention were good, the retaliatory policies forced during during reconstruction, ie, carpet bagging type policies and looting, if not officially sanctioned was permitted with a systemic blind eye.In the long run those policies hurt the newly freed slaves, and where not the the polices that Lincoln and his cabinet had planned. Iam sure to the benefit contemporary republicans it did not refer to how those policies helped kickstart the KKK and jim crow in retaliation of those polices, both official and unofficial. I am not sure which history books or what academic level your referring too. I don’t recall much about my history texts in earlier grades, but I know the texts at high-school level got into some of this. And I know for sure it was covered in my college level American history class’. I hear this sort of shit being parroted by conservatives often; particularly in the lower income brackets, and it is just as much bullshit as the liberal media crapola that is repeated ad-nauseam,………………. hello who owns the media outlets?

      • You really are challenged to present any specific information, aren’t you Dave? You must an elected Democrat in on the whole plan. Specifically what policies, and of whom specifically?

  74. What a great history lesson! I Some of this I knew – growing up in West Virginia & now having lived in Arkansas for over 20 yrs, I knew most of the history mentioned between those two states. How quickly we forget & I am disappointed that those who lived through much of this have not made more of an effort to remind younger generations.

    I just this week read a reprint of another great story from history that I’d never heard before. From the Sept. ’12 issue of Reader’s digest ‘The Man who wouldn’t quit’ the story of George Haley.

    I’m very grateful for the current event stories shared on this blog & I’d love to see more like this one as well.

    • Thank you for reading it! I want to spread accurate History so not only Democrats will learn the History of their party, but the Republicans will too! I noticed a lot of them didn’t know this information as well!!!

      • May I suggest that the actions of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party in 2014 is the real measure of what’s what. So, when reviewing the policy preferences of each it’s easy to see which party has policies that are more favorable to minorities. From voting rights to women’s issues to domestic policies to economic policies to health care to every category, Democrats have the edge. Minorities know this and that’s why they favor Democrats in huge numbers.
        You can have your history, which is by the way, skewed to make the Republican Party look squeaky clean on race issues. I’ll take reality in 2014. Additionally, most of the Democrats you reference on these issues changed parties and became Republicans, because the Democrat Party rejected prejudice and embraced segregation.
        In 2014, Republicans would not even allow a vote on the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act, just to name two.
        Therefore, your argument fails to persuade and serves only to make your choir feel good.
        Have a great day.

      • Worried about the Democrats losing their power James? You cite all the wonderful things the Democrats have done for blacks without citing anything. You say they need more civil rights. What pray tell, civil right do blacks not have today that they didn’t already get from the Republicans?

        Let’s see…must be a racial profiling thing or something–we need to stop identifying criminals by color of skin, color of shirt, color of car, etc…right in line with the Democrats’ support of criminals. Or the need to get black executions back down to the same numbers of whites, never mind it’s the Democrats who keep getting whites off the hangman’s hook. Maybe black women can’t get enough abortions of their black children. Too bad “right-wing” Hitler’s gone, he would have helped your left-wing cause.

        Oh wait, there’s arch Democrat Hero and Black Women’s Rights Champion Kermit Gosnell! His bloody tools must still be laying around somewhere in need of sharpening. Democrat compassion at its guttural best.

        Want more executed black babies Jim? Donate to the Free Gosnell NOW Fund (a service provided by your fellow Democrats).

        And of course you will respond by showing us the pro-slavery plank in today’s Republican Party platform. And the repudiation of the 1964 CRA plank. And you will try to deny that the Democrats who joined the Republicans did so not because the Republicans were supporting racism (ink wasn’t even dry on the ’64 CRA), but because the Democrats were supporting Communism.

        Then you’ll tell us how the Klan votes Republican today. Except that the Klan is decidedly anti-Israel, so the Democrats would still be the party of choice for them (how’s Obama’s shrine to Pilot Muhammad Atta and the 911 terrorists coming along?).

        The only evidence you have at all that any of the Klan have sided with the Republicans is that the lynchings have stopped.

      • I would love to see you on Fox News. I have left a message with Doctor Ben Carson. This nation needs a real great uniter, One who will come into the republican party and unite us as a nation of people. Lately I have been hearing so much about white privilege, Meanwhile the reality is the democrat party is favoring and giving privilege to Illegal aliens. This is their big cover up to divert the people from the real issue. The democrats are selling us out. When the proclamation was signed half the slaves in this nation were white. It was easier to go after and victimize the black people who as you know were terrorized by the democrats relentlessly. You will never hear or see any of the facts of slavery out of the democrat party. This is our country, we the people fought for it and slaved for it. I think it is way beyond time we unite and bring our people together to save what we have left for the people of OUR nation. God Bless You and your courage. We need so much more of that these days.

      • guess I’m going to do a LOT of research! thanks for the info – I was raised in the south by white racist parents (a concept I couldn’t understand) and who disowned me at 18yrs old BEC I wouldn’t accept their beliefs – my irish friend is huge Civil War buff who has told me some of this info you posted and I never heard it even in school in – so at 65 I have to reevaluate dems vs reps! I have confederate soldiers in ancestry who did have slaves, freed them, and who took the family name STEPHENS!

      • The Republican party used to be a lot more centrist. They did a lot of decent things years ago, but the theme of the party was entirely different. They have become a fringe party thag literally wants to destroy everything we’ve worked so hard to create in this country. These things include: Social Security, the EPA, the public school system, “Obamacare”, Pell Grants, SNAP programs, there’s even much talk on the right about abolishing the minimum wage! They may once have supported great humanitarian efforts, but the Republican party has degenerated into something unrecognizeable to the party of 50 years ago.

      • While you are technically correct in your listing of what party did what, this post is ill conceived when you neglect to specify that people who would of considered themselves Republicans in the 1800s would label themselves liberals and Democrats, and vice versa. The Republican party was the liberal party of the time and the Democrats the conservatives. Conservatives by and large have been behind history when it comes to civil issues such as civil rights, gender equality and the environment. A rose by any other name….
        I could call myself a Klan Member but unless i really hate minorities the title doesn’t mean very much…

    • That was then, this is now, after all of the dixiecrats jumped ship to the republican side of the aile in reaction to democratic president LB Johnson’ signing of the civil rights act of 1964, the once democrat southerners became republicans. So do not let this bullshit piece of propaganda fool you. The republican party after Taft became more and more the party of the financial elite. The dixiecrat defection of the 1960s made the change complete.. The republican party of 2015 represents the worst elements of both parties, and in fact following Reagan’, failed economic policies has with each successive year and election year platform become evermore the party of the 1%.

      • Can you name some specific Democrats that jumped to the Republican Party? I’d like to know specifically to whom you’re referring.

    • its not about Republicans vs Democrats. It’s about the Conservative Movement. The Conservative movement used to make its home base in the Democratic Party, now they make it in the Republican Party. So if current Republicans align themselves with the Conservative movement, then they are aligning themselves with actions of the Democrats back in the day when they were conservatives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s