Black people are criminals POTD

SFGbob said:

show previous quotes

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-david-duke-mary-schmich-20170815-column.html

I like to post links that don't refute a fucking word the other guy said. I also like to post links and not quote anything said in the link because as a lightweight Kunt I know this is the best method for me to use my Kunt act where I can say that I never "said" anything in the article I linked. That way I don't have to defend it.

That's what lightweight Kunts do.

SFGbob said:

show previous quotes

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-david-duke-mary-schmich-20170815-column.html

I like to post links that don't refute a fucking word the other guy said. I also like to post links and not quote anything said in the link because as a lightweight Kunt I know this is the best method for me to use my Kunt act where I can say that I never "said" anything in the article I linked. That way I don't have to defend it.

That's what lightweight Kunts do.

You sound like a big fat old fat guy.

You sound like a guy that an ignore feature was created for.

CirrhosisDawg said:

show previous quotes

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-david-duke-mary-schmich-20170815-column.html

I like to post links that don't refute a fucking word the other guy said. I also like to post links and not quote anything said in the link because as a lightweight Kunt I know this is the best method for me to use my Kunt act where I can say that I never "said" anything in the article I linked. That way I don't have to defend it.

That's what lightweight Kunts do.

You sound like a big fat old fat guy.

MariotaTheGawd said:

It's hard to think of a more bitchmade move on a message board than bragging about putting someone on ignore. Just do it and be done with it.

2001400ex said:

show previous quotes

Sledog said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-david-duke-mary-schmich-20170815-column.html

I like to post links that don't refute a fucking word the other guy said. I also like to post links and not quote anything said in the link because as a lightweight Kunt I know this is the best method for me to use my Kunt act where I can say that I never "said" anything in the article I linked. That way I don't have to defend it.

That's what lightweight Kunts do.

You sound like a big fat old fat guy.

You sound like a 30 year old in mom's basement eating Hotpockets.

If we are going to bag on meatball or BBQ hot pockets then I'm out.

SFGbob said:

show previous quotes

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

HillsboroDuck said:

show previous quotes

SFGbob said:

HillsboroDuck said:

Bendintheriver said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

Bendintheriver said:

So the guy who just claimed that ability to pay for birth control is somehow tied to skin color is now trying to call someone else out for being a racist?

Did he really say that? It is so racist to think that way I can't believe he actually shared his true thoughts on the subject. It falls right in line with the lefts thinking that blacks are too stupid or lazy to get ID to vote.

If you let them talk long enough the ol' dem party racism comes out of all of them.

They are the historical racists but purchased votes with our tax dollars. Republicans freed the slaves at the cost of many thousands of white lives in the civil war. Odd the democrats gave their lives to continue slavery. Dem's gave them Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation. I guess the question is which party gave more. Evidence would suggest the dems did by purchasing the votes. Keep those checks going out. Nothing else matters.

"When my guy says racist shit I point at the other guy for shit from 70 years ago" POTD

It probably says something that the segregationists immediately fled the Democratic party and joined the Republicans after 1964. I wonder what happened to cause that

The sound you're hearing is the idiot deplorables googling "what happened in 1964"

You are either ignorant or lying. Why don't you tell us.

Educate yourself.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/

The Myth of the Republican-Democrat 'Switch'

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

The problem with the liberal narrative here isn't that they're wrong about a lot of Republicans being racist (they're not) it's that they're in complete denial about the racism within their own ranks.

Until they're willing to own, acknowledge and deal with that their screams at the right are going to continue to be ineffective and dishonest.

The right needs to deal with that shit in their own ranks because racism is wrong, but not because the left has any moral superiority on the subject.

Agreed, racism is wrong and I think the right does a pretty good job in policing their own. Duke was kicked out of the GOP, Sharpton was turned into an honored elder statesman and king maker in the Rat party.

Yeah that’s where we disagree

RaceBannon said:

https://nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/steve-king-white-supremacy.html


The Steve King who was removed from his chairmanship? Thanks for proving Bob's point. Good one

The gal who married her brother is still a chairperson, no?

SFGbob said:

We know about King a single Congressman who was stripped of all his committee positions. Hardly compares to Sharpton who is a kingmaker in the Rat party and who was given a prime time speaking slot at the Rat's convention and who was Obama's GOTV chairman for 8 years. Go ahead, give us your ignorant take on why Miller and Gohmert are racists.

Hey Kunt, watch this space closely because one of us is going to end up running and hiding like a Kunt and it's not going to be me and then we'll see who the fucking coward here is.

CirrhosisDawg said:

show previous quotes

SFGbob said:

We know about King a single Congressman who was stripped of all his committee positions. Hardly compares to Sharpton who is a kingmaker in the Rat party and who was given a prime time speaking slot at the Rat's convention and who was Obama's GOTV chairman for 8 years. Go ahead, give us your ignorant take on why Miller and Gohmert are racists.

Hey Kunt, watch this space closely because one of us is going to end up running and hiding like a Kunt and it's not going to be me and then we'll see who the fucking coward here is.

I knew you had no rebuttal. Thanks for confirming once again that you are a fucking coward. Where did sharpton touch you?

2001400ex said:

show previous quotes

SFGbob said:

MariotaTheGawd said:

It's hard to think of a more bitchmade move on a message board than bragging about putting someone on ignore. Just do it and be done with it.

If there was or is an ignore feature I would. The guy isn't here for kind of honest exchange, he is here just be an ass and a troll. Hell Hondo is more substantive than he or your are.

Why waste my time with troll dumbfucks who aren't even interested in discussing any issues. It's not as if either of you Kunts are funny or interesting or insightful in any way.

I literally laughed out loud at this.

SFGbob said:

show previous quotes

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

We know about King a single Congressman who was stripped of all his committee positions. Hardly compares to Sharpton who is a kingmaker in the Rat party and who was given a prime time speaking slot at the Rat's convention and who was Obama's GOTV chairman for 8 years. Go ahead, give us your ignorant take on why Miller and Gohmert are racists.

Hey Kunt, watch this space closely because one of us is going to end up running and hiding like a Kunt and it's not going to be me and then we'll see who the fucking coward here is.

I knew you had no rebuttal. Thanks for confirming once again that you are a fucking coward. Where did sharpton touch you?

Told ya. So Miller and Gohmert are racist according to this Kunt but when asked how he is just too big a coward to say. And I did have a rebuttal, which makes you a lying Kunt.

2001400ex said:

Can we get back to how referring to criminal justice reform as the number one thing a president has done to help African Americans is racist?