• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama threatened, called 'monkey' by ex-Carson council candidate

Yes, really. You're the guys that elected him to your legislature and made him a candidate for statewide office. Let's face it, the views of Louisiana Republicans and the KKK on things like minorities are virtually indistinguishable.

"You guys"? His district--in Metairie--elected him to the legislature.
 
I proved it with two articles. Both of which you refused to read.

checkmate.

It's not up to me to prove you right. That's your job.

Obviously, the proof doesn't exist, since you refuse to post it.
 
Reading is for those uppity New York Times big brain book worms.

The real conservative knows the truth in his gut.

Uppity, eh? Nice racism.
 
Of course they did, and everybody knows it. Hell, Lee Atwater's 'southern strategy' was based on getting the angry white vote.

You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P. - New York Times

Since the author of this piece is black, I'm sure it will be dismissed by our very conservative deep South Republican.

Actually, I'm going to dismiss it because it's an opion piece and not primary source documentation explaining why Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party.

But, hey! I know that opinion is just as good as fact, in Libbo Land.
 
Of course you're going to dismiss it. YOu'll undoubtedly dismiss this as well:


In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism and fears of lawlessness among Southern white voters and appealing to fears of growing federal power in social and economic matters (generally lumped under the concept of states rights). Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixicrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
-American chairman The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s.[1] The strategy was successful in some regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the 20th century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[1] During the 2000s decade, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the previous century. Michael Steele served as the party's first Africanfrom January 2009-January 2011.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then, of course, there's this:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm

Of course this guy was only the Chair of the National REpublican Party. He's probably another resident of 'Libbo Land'.


Libbo Land, however, is a great response. The kind we've come to expect from Far Right Southern 'conservatives'. Penetrating, inciteful, and indicative of a really good southern education.
 
Last edited:
Of course you're going to dismiss it. YOu'll undoubtedly dismiss this as well:


In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism and fears of lawlessness among Southern white voters and appealing to fears of growing federal power in social and economic matters (generally lumped under the concept of states rights). Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixicrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
-American chairman The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s.[1] The strategy was successful in some regards. It contributed to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the 20th century came to a close, the Republican Party began trying to appeal again to black voters, though with little success.[1] During the 2000s decade, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the previous century. Michael Steele served as the party's first Africanfrom January 2009-January 2011.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And then, of course, there's this:


USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

Of course this guy was only the Chair of the National REpublican Party. He's probably another resident of 'Libbo Land'.


Libbo Land, however, is a great response. The kind we've come to expect from Far Right Southern 'conservatives'. Penetrating, inciteful, and indicative of a really good southern education.

You can post all the op-eds you want and you still haven't proven anything.

How many times do you have to be told that opinion doesn't equal fact? My good ol' southron ejumacation taught me that. ;)
 
You can post all the op-eds you want and you still haven't proven anything.

How many times do you have to be told that opinion doesn't equal fact? My good ol' southron ejumacation taught me that. ;)

you seem to be of the opinion that you are always right, and everyone else is always wrong.
 
you seem to be of the opinion that you are always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

I never said I was right. I disagree with you assumption and have asked for evidence to back it up. So far, you've failed to deliver.
 
Actually, I'm going to dismiss it because it's an opion piece and not primary source documentation explaining why Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party.

But, hey! I know that opinion is just as good as fact, in Libbo Land.

apdst - since when did you become such a fan of primary sources to document ones claims? In many discussions about why southern states seceded from the Union you do every single thing you can to dismiss the actual official legal statements from the southern states themselves as to why the seceded and instead prefer to use opinion from others who tend to agree with your own personal slant on the issue.

You reject those primary sources out of hand because you do not like what they say and they make your own position look weak and defenseless.

So when did you become such a big fan of primary sources to document ones claims?
 
Its a little silly IMO in 2011 (almost 2012) to be arguing over who may have done what for what motivation in 1960. If it makes modern day liberals feel better about themselves to claim that the party that fought for or against liberating slaves and FOR human rights suddenly overnight switched affiliation...welll..by golly...embrace it...whichever side you pretend you land on. And hey...if embracing decades of appeasement acts and welfare programs that have destoryed minority families and created the massive dependent class we have in America is viewed as a good thing...then by all means...you should embrace that as well.

But...here in the real world...we have a few problems. **** aint working. And if anyone supports either party and their miserbale actions...you are just as big a part of the problem as they are.

Merry Christmas
 
You can post all the op-eds you want and you still haven't proven anything.

How many times do you have to be told that opinion doesn't equal fact? My good ol' southron ejumacation taught me that. ;)

So an apology by the Republican National Committee Chairman means nothing to you? Not indicative of a racist national political strategy?

Then I'd suggest that you are incapable of reason, and indeed a product of the lame Southern educational system that still dotes on 'The Wawa of Nawthin' Aggression' and longs for the good old days when everybody 'knew their place'.

My suspicions have been confirmed.
 
Its a little silly IMO in 2011 (almost 2012) to be arguing over who may have done what for what motivation in 1960. If it makes modern day liberals feel better about themselves to claim that the party that fought for or against liberating slaves and FOR human rights suddenly overnight switched affiliation...welll..by golly...embrace it...whichever side you pretend you land on. And hey...if embracing decades of appeasement acts and welfare programs that have destoryed minority families and created the massive dependent class we have in America is viewed as a good thing...then by all means...you should embrace that as well.

But...here in the real world...we have a few problems. **** aint working. And if anyone supports either party and their miserbale actions...you are just as big a part of the problem as they are.

Merry Christmas

Yeah, we were much better off when those minority families were workin' for white people, cleaning their toilets and raising their children, in exchange for peanuts. I know they're the good old days to you folks, but you might possibly understand why they might not consider them so great.
 
apdst - since when did you become such a fan of primary sources to document ones claims? In many discussions about why southern states seceded from the Union you do every single thing you can to dismiss the actual official legal statements from the southern states themselves as to why the seceded and instead prefer to use opinion from others who tend to agree with your own personal slant on the issue.

You reject those primary sources out of hand because you do not like what they say and they make your own position look weak and defenseless.

So when did you become such a big fan of primary sources to document ones claims?

He doesn't care for primary source documents that contradict the extreme right wing version of American history and the world in general.
 
He doesn't care for primary source documents that contradict the extreme right wing version of American history and the world in general.

Exactly. A perfect summation.
 
Actually, I'm going to dismiss it because it's an opion piece and not primary source documentation explaining why Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party.

But, hey! I know that opinion is just as good as fact, in Libbo Land.

Wait, is this a thread where you're denying the undisputed historical fact that the conservative Southern Democrats (many racist) switched to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Movement? Do we really have to go through this silly debate again?
 
So an apology by the Republican National Committee Chairman means nothing to you? Not indicative of a racist national political strategy?

Then I'd suggest that you are incapable of reason, and indeed a product of the lame Southern educational system that still dotes on 'The Wawa of Nawthin' Aggression' and longs for the good old days when everybody 'knew their place'.

My suspicions have been confirmed.

You still didn't prove that 1) All Republicans are racists and 2) the, "tons", of Southern Democrats switched parties because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Why on earth would Democrats switch to the party that supported the CRA with a higher percentage? Can you possibly see how your argument doesn't make sense?
 
He doesn't care for primary source documents that contradict the extreme right wing version of American history and the world in general.

Well, obviously, you don't know what primary source documentation is, because so far, you've only posted secondary cource documentation.

HINT: Opeds aren't primary source docs. :lamo
 
Wait, is this a thread where you're denying the undisputed historical fact that the conservative Southern Democrats (many racist) switched to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Movement? Do we really have to go through this silly debate again?

Nope, not disputing that at all. Try and keep up, huh?
 
You still didn't prove that 1) All Republicans are racists and 2) the, "tons", of Southern Democrats switched parties because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Why on earth would Democrats switch to the party that supported the CRA with a higher percentage? Can you possibly see how your argument doesn't make sense?

1. True, it does not prove that.
2. That's just a historical fact.

The answser to your question is that, just as the Democratic party was controlled state-by-state, allowing southern Dems to coexist with northern liberal Dems, so was the Republican party. Parties, like pretty much all our politics, are state affairs. There is only one national election, the rest are state by state.

The white southern Dems bolted for the Republicans because suddenly blacks were voting in Democratic primaries. That doesn't mean they were all racists. There were racists among them though, no question.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not disputing that at all. Try and keep up, huh?

That's why I posed my question in the form of a question. It was a very skeptical question, I'll admit that.
 
Yeah, we were much better off when those minority families were workin' for white people, cleaning their toilets and raising their children, in exchange for peanuts. I know they're the good old days to you folks, but you might possibly understand why they might not consider them so great.

Wow! So, black folks only worked for white folks cleaning their toilets, prior to being made slaves to the welfare system.

The level of insult and racism in that post is beyond words.
 
That's why I posed my question in the form of a question. It was a very skeptical question, I'll admit that.

How else would you pose a question, but in the form of a question?

Let me get you up to speed: the claim was made that, "tons", of Southern Democrats switched parties, for purely racist reasons and therefore all Republicans are racist.

I disagree with that and have asked for prove of it's validity.
 
1. True, it does not prove that.
2. That's just a historical fact.

The answser to your question is that, just as the Democratic party was controlled state-by-state, allowing southern Dems to coexist with northern liberal Dems, so was the Republican party. Parties, like pretty much all our politics, are state affairs. There is only one national election, the rest are state by state.

The white southern Dems bolted for the Republicans because suddenly blacks were voting in Democratic primaries. That doesn't mean they were all racists. There were racists among them though, no question.


You shouldn't have any problem proving that that is the reason they switched parties.
 
How else would you pose a question, but in the form of a question?

Exactly!

Thanks for answering my question.

Let me get you up to speed: the claim was made that, "tons", of Southern Democrats switched parties, for purely racist reasons and therefore all Republicans are racist.

I disagree with that and have asked for prove of it's validity.

Thanks. You saved me some time.

Yeah, not all of them were racist. Yeah, some of them were. Any attempt to get more specific than that is going to be a long, drawn out, ultimately failed thread.
 
You shouldn't have any problem proving that that is the reason they switched parties.

I wouldn't have any problem proving that. However, don't mistake that statement for saying that they were motivated by racism.
 
Back
Top Bottom