Nazis and KKK get laughed at...

cannabis said:
bijou is obsessed with needle dicks. she can't stop talking about them.

poor bijou.
Click to expand...

Her paucity of intellectual debating skills appears to extend to her rather limited vocabulary of sexual insults. Maria Muldaur maintained that "it ain't the meat, it's the motion", was she wrong?

 
Last edited:
DamnYankee said:
These are the facts that you are trying to ignore:

The strong Republican majority in congress overrode a veto from Democrat President Andrew Johnson for the first time in US history and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1868. The racist Johnson then refused to enforce it.

Republicans passed the Civil Rights act of 1875, which was struck down by the Democrat majority Supreme Court in 1883. Republicans tried again in 1957, watering down a Civil Rights Act to overcome stiff Democrat opposition. 1960 brought a third Republican Civil Rights Act, pushed through after nearly a week long Democrat filibuster.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was essentially a re-writing of the 1875 legislation, and was passed against chief opponents Albert Gore Sr. and a 14 hour filibuster by former Klansman Robert Byrd...
Click to expand...

Here, stupid - read this. The point keeps flying over your empty head.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0313-33.htm
 
DamnYankee said:
These are the facts that you are trying to ignore:

The strong Republican majority in congress overrode a veto from Democrat President Andrew Johnson for the first time in US history and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1868. The racist Johnson then refused to enforce it.

Republicans passed the Civil Rights act of 1875, which was struck down by the Democrat majority Supreme Court in 1883. Republicans tried again in 1957, watering down a Civil Rights Act to overcome stiff Democrat opposition. 1960 brought a third Republican Civil Rights Act, pushed through after nearly a week long Democrat filibuster.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was essentially a re-writing of the 1875 legislation, and was passed against chief opponents Albert Gore Sr. and a 14 hour filibuster by former Klansman Robert Byrd...
Click to expand...

Not only did I not ignore your points, I commented on them and even agreed with your unattributed second-hand second paragraph. I take it you are/were not glockmail back in 2005, huh?

However, what you posted (mostly about the 19th Century) was in response to the information I shared about Repub voting record in the 20th Century. That's why, rather than ignore it, I said it was tangential - to be kind. Nice background - truly - and you won't get ANY argument from me about the great work the Radical Repubs did prior to, during and for a short while after the Civil War. :good4u:

I suppose I don't need to say that reiteration is not evidence, especially when it doesn't directly address the topic of voting records in 1964. But, ooops, I guess I said it anyway.

But, DamnYankee, YOU are the one ignoring....what I shared re: that voting record. Now that you've had more than one opportunity to challenge on the merits the info I posted and you have not done so, we will conclude that you admit it is essentially accurate. That undermines - at least in the context of the 1964 Law - the entire meme Repubs are pushing about how Repubs were so strong on Civil Rights.

We also note that, despite your sarcastic comment(s), you have NO substantive explanation (or spin, even) for what Atwater said about the Southern Strategy of the Repubs (RSS). Definitely an unimpeachable source, who wasn't anxious for the information to be attributed to him.

By the way, the article you posted from the Claremont Institute [Did you think I had ignored it, too? No. No.] does not so much deny the RSS as it attempts to explain it in slightly more palatable terms. The very quote you highlighted does exactly that re: expediency.

DamnYankee said:
The article also says this: "It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty political context." And then it explains why the myth that the Democrat Party has propagated in response is false.
Click to expand...

As if expediency could not include race baiting. Pleeeeease!

If you want to engage further on that article re: "the myth", I will WELCOME the opportunity to do so because its logic is seriously flawed in more than one respect.

But for now, DamnYankee..............we will move on, OK?

Like you, other Conservatives & Repubs give a very incomplete, one-sided and blind-spotted account of Blacks and the Repubs - even going back to the period when Blacks were reliable and almost monolithically Republican.

Since you want to dwell in the 19th Century, I'll mention one point before I hand off to another solidly UNimpeachable source for commentary - a Loyal Black Republican.
.
After the Civil War, Repubs turned their backs on the aspirations of Blacks in the South with their "expedient" Tilden-Hayes Compromise with the newly returned, but still racist Dems in the South. The Radical Repubs left southern Blacks to the not-so-tender mercies of the racist Dems and their allies in the Klan and elsewhere. The last of the Federal troops were withdrawn and the Bourbon planter class was allowed by Repubs to take care of their Black semi-citizens in any way they wished. Call it expediency or selling out your supporters, but the result was the same: the suppression, disenfranchisement and terrorization of the Black population. Repubs, though not as guilty as the Dems of that era, had that blood on their hands, too.​
.
But Blacks remained loyal to Repubs for about 50 more years anyway.

To provide some of the reasons for that "loyalty" and, in the larger context, an explanation by that UNimpeachable source I mentioned, I now turn it over to a Black Republican, who is desperately trying to help his Party see the light. I seriously doubt that you will be able to contradict him on any major fact in his presentation. Check him out:

It is a book review of a book called "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" by Zak.

QUOTE begins:
I myself am a Black Republican, so I agree with Mr. Zak that the GOP's history on civil rights has not been fairly told. However, this book makes the same 2 errors that most GOP loyalists make when discussing Blacks and the GOP:
1)they oversimplify the ideology of the early Republicans and abolitionists.

For example, notably missing from Mr. Zak's book are the following facts:
- that Herbert Hoover (Republican) was the first president to refuse to address the NAACP's convention,
- that Carter G. Woodson-the Founder of Black History Month-became so disappointed with the GOP that in the late 1920's he publicly stated that Blacks should stop being blindly loyal to the GOP,
- that soon after Reconstruction the GOP condoned the formation in the South of racially segregated GOP organizations, called the Lily Whites and the Black & Tans;
- that beginning in the 1870's Republican candidates lost elections in some Northern states because the Radical Republicans' idea of perfect equality was not embraced by most Whites, not even by most Republicans;
- that Lincoln was NOT a Radical Republican, he was a moderate who had ALWAYS discussed freeing the slaves ONLY in conjunction with deporting them to another country, for Lincoln openly declared that Blacks were inferior to Whites;
- that after the Civil War the GOP was weak nationally-since the founding of the GOP America has had 4 presidents who won by electoral vote but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republicans (Harrison, Hayes, Garfield, and Bush);
- that not all Republicans or abolitionists believed in racial equality, in fact most did NOT, they believed ONLY in ending slavery, and even on that issue they disagreed on the reasons, some were against slavery for moral reasons, others because they feared slave revolts, others because slavery competed with White labor, others because they wanted the good farmland used for more than just cotton.

2) they leave out much of how/why Blacks left the GOP in the first place:

Mr. Zak's book does lay blame at the feet of Barry Goldwater, but overlooks the fact that Goldwater's victory in the GOP presidential primary obviusly says something about the views of rank and file Republicans in 1964-national civil rights legislation was clearly not a priority for most Republican voters in 1964, else Goldwater could not have won {the nomination}. << EDIT by Barracuda
Goldwater was just the icing on the cake.

Beginning in the 1870's, the GOP began taking the Black vote for granted precisely because the Democrats were such vicious racists. Mr. Zak's book points out how the Democrats were at one point synonymous with the KKK, but he overlooks the obvious political implication for Black voters-if their only 2 choices were between the GOP and the Klan, it was an easy decision. Blacks voted for the GOP because they feared voting for the Democrats, this led to the GOP taking the Black vote for granted as the GOP moved further away from civil rights issues in order to attract more White voters, feeling confident that in doing so it would not lose Black voters. Today, it's the Democrats who take the Black vote for granted, because most Black voters are afraid of the GOP-the tables have turned.

As a Black Republican who is pro civil rights, I think what we need is a balanced review of history. This book is not balanced. Throughout history minorities have been used by the dominant group like a political footbal, and Blacks in America are no different. I'm working with some other Black Republicans to prepare a balanced view of Blacks and the GOP told from the Black perspective, not the perspective of a party loyalist.
Click to expand...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member...=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2QNQ2I26XVJKR

Looking forward to your substantive comments, DamnYankee.
:cool:
 
Barracuda said:
Not only did I not ignore your points, I commented on them and even agreed with your unattributed second-hand second paragraph. I take it you are/were not glockmail back in 2005, huh?

However, what you posted (mostly about the 19th Century) was in response to the information I shared about Repub voting record in the 20th Century. That's why, rather than ignore it, I said it was tangential - to be kind. Nice background - truly - and you won't get ANY argument from me about the great work the Radical Repubs did prior to, during and for a short while after the Civil War. :good4u:

I suppose I don't need to say that reiteration is not evidence, especially when it doesn't directly address the topic of voting records in 1964. But, ooops, I guess I said it anyway.

But, DamnYankee, YOU are the one ignoring....what I shared re: that voting record. Now that you've had more than one opportunity to challenge on the merits the info I posted and you have not done so, we will conclude that you admit it is essentially accurate. That undermines - at least in the context of the 1964 Law - the entire meme Repubs are pushing about how Repubs were so strong on Civil Rights.

We also note that, despite your sarcastic comment(s), you have NO substantive explanation (or spin, even) for what Atwater said about the Southern Strategy of the Repubs (RSS). Definitely an unimpeachable source, who wasn't anxious for the information to be attributed to him.

By the way, the article you posted from the Claremont Institute [Did you think I had ignored it, too? No. No.] does not so much deny the RSS as it attempts to explain it in slightly more palatable terms. The very quote you highlighted does exactly that re: expediency.

DamnYankee said:


As if expediency could not include race baiting. Pleeeeease!

If you want to engage further on that article re: "the myth", I will WELCOME the opportunity to do so because its logic is seriously flawed in more than one respect.

But for now, DamnYankee..............we will move on, OK?

Like you, other Conservatives & Repubs give a very incomplete, one-sided and blind-spotted account of Blacks and the Repubs - even going back to the period when Blacks were reliable and almost monolithically Republican.

Since you want to dwell in the 19th Century, I'll mention one point before I hand off to another solidly UNimpeachable source for commentary - a Loyal Black Republican.
.
After the Civil War, Repubs turned their backs on the aspirations of Blacks in the South with their "expedient" Tilden-Hayes Compromise with the newly returned, but still racist Dems in the South. The Radical Repubs left southern Blacks to the not-so-tender mercies of the racist Dems and their allies in the Klan and elsewhere. The last of the Federal troops were withdrawn and the Bourbon planter class was allowed by Repubs to take care of their Black semi-citizens in any way they wished. Call it expediency or selling out your supporters, but the result was the same: the suppression, disenfranchisement and terrorization of the Black population. Repubs, though not as guilty as the Dems of that era, had that blood on their hands, too.​
.
But Blacks remained loyal to Repubs for about 50 more years anyway.

To provide some of the reasons for that "loyalty" and, in the larger context, an explanation by that UNimpeachable source I mentioned, I now turn it over to a Black Republican, who is desperately trying to help his Party see the light. I seriously doubt that you will be able to contradict him on any major fact in his presentation. Check him out:

It is a book review of a book called "Back to Basics for the Republican Party" by Zak.

QUOTE begins:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member...=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2QNQ2I26XVJKR

Looking forward to your substantive comments, DamnYankee.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Why should I comment on the opinion of someone who read a book?
 
Pretty creepy that a guy with 8 posts would equate me with an old screen name. Apparently I destroyed him so thoroughly back then that he still hasn't forgotten...
 
Why should I comment on the opinion of someone who read a book?
Click to expand...

DamnYankee says AS IF that is the only thing he is avoiding responding to in any substantive way. One reason you might comment would be to debunk any assertions the Black Republican made which you want to show are inaccurate. If you can't, then that's another matter.

DY, I don't know you so I won't ascribe motives to you. But I am familiar - very familiar - with others who dance and dodge (sometimes with empty and pointless sarcasm) when they have no factual response to information which does serious damage to the "facts" underlying their beliefs or positions.

I had hoped that in you I would find someone actually willing to enter into a substantive discussion. If you are content with trading barbs with people, have fun. I can play that game also (it IS fun sometimes), but prefer intelligent conversation.

I've already responded to your posts and given you the opportunity to address:
- Lee Atwater's comments, along with Kevin Philips comments and Mehlman's apology
- Repub voting record on the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- the history of Repubs and Blacks, including the Tilden Hayes Compromise
- the article that YOU posted from the Claremont Institute
- race-baiting as an included item in the political "expediency" YOU highlighted

Why not pick one (or more) and let's have a discussion?
:cool:
 
I've already commented on the history of blacks and the Democrat Party. Slavery, secession, slavery, the KKK and affirmative action forever. You've destroyed many black families.
 
The bubble lives! No discussion or debate of presentation of facts regarding history just naked denial. A wonderful example of ideology if ever I saw one. One worthy of ridicule and laughter just like in the OP.

Another thoughtful, excellent post Barracuda!
 
Seen this movie before.............

It's obvious to all, Damn Yankee, that you cannot offer any facts or logic to contradict the information I've posted re: history. You've been challenged and you have failed to rise to it. Noted, but no problem; that's your choice. Like I said, I've seen this movie before with different actors and it almost always ends the same way; deflection, empty reiteration or stumped silence.

But, DamnYankee, I do admit being surprised that you won't even engage on the Claremont Institute article that YOU posted. You know....the one from 2004 that was published before Atwater's comments had been attributed to him. The one that failed to mention Kevin Philips in its efforts to deny the appeal to racial animus and racists. And before Mehlman apologized for racial pandering. In other words, THAT article is severely OUTDATED.

Oh,...I get it.......perhaps you don't want to give it any attention because, like the Black Republican I quoted, "ALL" the author of the CI article did was read a book(s). Now it makes sense!

Since you choose not to engage on the 20th century history, DamnYankee, let's see how you do with Current Events.

I see that the recently released Associated Press Survey was discussed at JPP previous to me first finding JPP while searching for something else. But there's one VERY significant aspect of the results which is relevant IMO to this discussion about the Repub Southern Strategy. Scanning that previous discussion, I didn't see this particular aspect (Party affiliations) addressed, nor did you comment (just a fact; not a judgment; you may not have even seen it).

AP On-Line Survey: 79% of Repubs and 32% of Dems Express Explicit Anti-Black Sentiments
Also, some Anti-Latino Sentiments expressed as well.
About equal on Implicit measures.

The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties . That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).
Click to expand...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-27-04-13-34

On the explicit measure that means that two and half times (246%) as many Repubs as Dems express anti-Black sentiments. To me this is UNsurprising given the decades long Repub Southern Strategy, which was in part an appeal to racial resentments. The Repubs have reaped what they have sowed. When Kevin Philips told Repubs they could win with just a small fraction of the Black vote, he apparently did not own a color TV and could not see the growing Brown demographic nor did he realize that many, many whites would be alienated by such racist pandering.

Assuming, DY, that you attend Repub gatherings, it means (in a statistical sense) on average that just about 8 out of 10 of Repubs you are interacting with, would express anti-Black sentiments in a similar setting (on-line). I bet that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling.

No number of opinion pieces, fallacious logic or attempts by hyper-partisan apologists can deny the existence of the Repub Southern Strategy, or its ugly race-baiting, in the face of the first person accounts of those who helped design and implement the RSS. Nor will apparently those pitiful attempts to deny reality be defended by you. At least THAT is good.
:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top