Democratic Party's record on Race >>MOD EDIT<<

Shameful Michelle Nunn and her evil cabal of democrat race baiters dangerously play the race care to stir up anger and hatred in the black community to help elect her to the Senate:

[video=youtube;ANf-RSAo04w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANf-RSAo04w[/video]

This is racism. This is the racist democrat party of yesterday. This is the racist democrat party of today.

 

Have a nice dinner. I'd reply to your post but as usual, there's nothing there to reply to except childish mocking and yet another logic fallacy, appeal to popularity.

 

That's a load of bunk that has been proven false over and over in this thread.

http://cache.trustedpartner.com/doc... DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM.pdf

Democrats have always been the liberal party. They have also always been the racist party, at least into the 1970's and 80's when they finally gave up on segregation.

The KKK was very popular not in just Southern states, but in Northern states as well. Many cities controlled by democrats had Jim Crow laws, segregation and Covenants and Conditions laws to restrict blacks from moving into white neighborhoods. Racism was not exclusive to the South.

 

Wallace was elected Governor of Alabama in 1982 with 95% of the black vote! From what I understand, those racist Southern democrats were conservatives, according to the democrats narrative today. Wallace was a liberal. From what I understand, those racist Southern democrat became republicans. Wallace never switched to republican. From what I understand, after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, all the democrats changed to liberals and were for civil rights. George Wallace ran for president in 1972 on a segregationist platform and won 6 democrat presidential primaries including 3 Northern states. So maybe this is 30 years ago, but it doesn't fit the narrative that the democrats switched 50 years ago, or in the 30's or whatever. It proves that the idea that they switched at all is a fallacy.

 

Just as they have claimed that the KKK was a Republican conspiracy of course the Progressive Democratic Party has revised and turned this horrible history making Conservative Republicans the nasty players in this. You'll never see this in the history books of High School or College students.

 

So you think the Democrats have ALWAYS been liberal and the Republicans have ALWAYS been conservatives? Do you know how bad you fail at history?

Right, we dont see it in our history books BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE

My senior year when I started to get more involved in politics I had to take a test about politics in the 1800's, it would ask questions like "Which party in the 1800's dominated the North?" I thought it was Democrats, because today they dominate the North, but in the 1800's everything was flipped around, the Democrats were Southern Conservatives, and the Republicans were Northern Liberals, this is a absolute historical fact there is absolutely no denying it without looking like a complete fool.

If you really think Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was a conservative than please explain to me why he supported a large federal government and Karl Marx adored him.......The Majority of Republicans today see Karl Marx as one of the most dangerous philosophers in all of history for wanting to abolish private property and create an equal society.

I accidentally deleted the first half of my reply to you when including this into my other post, so I will summarize what I said in the first half. Essentially, I said lets take a step away from America so you stop taking this so personal and we can look at this situation rationally. Lets take a look at Spain in the 30's, REPUBLICAN Spain. The Spanish had a civil war right before WWII, which is why they didnt participate in the world war, but the war was in Spain was literally Communism vs Fascism. Guess who was the Communist side? The Republicans. Yes, you heard right, the Nationalists even called the Republicans "Reds" because they were Communists.

"The Republican faction (Spanish: Bando republicano), also known as the Loyalist faction, was the side in the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939 that supported the established government of the Second Spanish Republic against the Nationalist or rebel faction of the military rebellion.[1] The name Republicans (republicanos), was mainly used by its members and supporters, while its opponents used the term Rojos (reds) to refer to this faction.[2]


Direct foreign support[edit]
Soviet Union[edit]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The Soviet Union primarily provided material assistance to the Republican forces. In total the USSR provided Spain with 806 planes, 362 tanks, and 1,555 artillery pieces.[6] The Soviet Union ignored the League of Nations embargo and sold arms to the Republic when few other nations would do so; thus it was the Republic's only important source of major weapons. Joseph Stalin had signed the Non-Intervention Agreement but decided to break the pact. However, unlike Hitler and Mussolini who openly violated the pact, Stalin tried to do so secretly.[7] He created a section X of the Soviet Union military to head the operation, coined Operation X. However, while a new branch of the military was created especially for Spain, most of the weapons and artillery sent to Spain were antiques. Stalin also used weapons captured from past conflicts.[8] However, modern weapons such as BT-5 tanks[9] and I-16 fighter aircraft were also supplied to Spain."

The soviet Union helped the REPUBLICANS, now, are you still going to sit here and pretend all Republicans have always been conservative? Its total bull (*)(*)(*)(*), you can be a Communist Republican if you want to, and the Republicans in America during the 1800's were a majority liberal, whereas the Democrats were majority conservative, this is absolute historical fact.

 

im going to put it all in one post, above.

 

What you fail to show is that the Republican Party was formed in 1854.
"The first "anti-Nebraska" local meeting where "Republican" was suggested as a name for a new anti-slavery party was held in a Ripon, Wisconsin schoolhouse on March 20, 1854". It emerged to combat the Kansas&#8211;Nebraska Act, which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy". There was never any mention of Liberal or conservative views.

 

Because the Republican party was not EXCLUSIVELY liberals, it was just a majority, there have always been wings to both parties that are liberal and conservative.

Answer me this, in your mind is it possible to be both a Republican AND a Communist at the same time?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican
"Rockefeller Republican (or "liberal Republican") was a faction of the American Republican Party (GOP) who held moderate to liberal views on domestic issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller, Governor of New York (1959-1973). It was the last phase of the "Eastern Establishment" of the GOP, which had been led by New York governor Thomas E. Dewey. The group's powerful role in the GOP came under heavy attack in 1964 and it lost most of its influence."

 

Hmmmm...how about a black REPUBLICAN in a white district?

Alan West....Florida 7th Congressional District

82.3% White, 3.8% Black, 1.7% Asian, 10.7% Hispanic, 0.1% Native American, 0.2% other

Mr. Expatriot ...got a comment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_22nd_congressional_district

See my thread "Will the black population have an epiphany?

 

I was Vice-President of the Teen-Age Republicans in Mobile AL in 1968-70. It is utter nonsense that the segregationist white Democrats became Republicans. We fought them over segregation and beat them, they did not come running to us. They had as they always had a home in the Democrat party. It was as Democrats they maintained control and fought desegregation. It was Republican appointed judges that ordered desegregation. It was the younger generation that was fed up with the Democrats and their support of segregation that led the shift to the Republican party and it had nothing to do with supporting segregation.

 

My point exactly:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=222393&page=74&p=1064403885#post1064403885

 

Yes the silence is deafening isn't it?

 

1) This is off topic.
2) There is no philosophical similarities between Spanish Republicans and the American Republican Party.
3) Germany and the USSR were fighting a proxy war.
4) I don't even know why this is relevant to the topic of the Democratic Party's record on race?
5) Abraham Lincoln was a conservative, and relating him to Karl Marx is just nonsense.

 

He was responding to my post on the first page about FDR's internment of Japanese American's. So unless you are saying it's not true...

 

I don't know why this thread is still open, but here is the new one:

Democrat Party's Record on Race Part II