• 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

Wiggen said:
I have to admit that in my years of debating issues on internet forums with people on the Far Right of the political spectrum, I have never before encountered one who simply denies history that he finds incovenient with quite as much density.
Click to expand...

The closest I have ever seen to it happened way back in 1971 during my senior year in college in an advanced Political theory course that all Political Science majors had to take in two parts and pass with at least a B. There was one prof who taught both sections and lots of people took it more than once. There was one guy in there who from day one wanted to argue that to leave the writing of Ayn Rand off the course reading list was a crime against political theory. Over and over and over again he would bring up Rand and her ersatz philosophy and the prof would destroy it like flushing a toilet. Everything was based on his own beliefs and his acceptance of what Rand wrote. He never included the works of anybody we were suppose to be talking about or reading. I cannot tell you how much class time was wasted on this nonsense. After a few weeks, he started again the the Prof could no longer take it. He told the guy in no certain terms to shut the hell up and never ever ever bring up Rand and her ideas again or he would get an F in the course and nothing else he did would count.

The rest of the class sat there stunned and then somebody started clapping and then everybody started clapping and the guy actually started crying and left never to return.

And that was my first introduction to Ayn Rand and her randroid true believers.
 
Wiggen said:
You cannot possibly be this dense. It was called 'The Southern Strategy' and it was devised by Lee Atwater.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I post the link knowing full well that you won't read it, but somebody else, who's head isn't buried in the sand (or someplace else) might.

That's the racist message.
Click to expand...

An interview with one person doesn't disprove the evidence already exists.

How do you explain the fact that 92% of Republicans voted for the CRA and 71% of Democrats and still call the Republicans the racists?

I hate to tell you this, but the, "Southern Strategy", is nothing more than propaganda. It take a few coincidental events and turns them into a propagandist story.

We know this, because your source says that Richard Nixon undertook the strategy in the late 1960's. How can that be, when it was Republicans--including VP Nixon--that wrote the CRA of 1957 and it was the Democrats--Johnson, Gore, et. al.--that tried to vote it down?



This is an excerpt from the wiki article that thunder posted, which goes even farther to prove you wrong.

Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
Now its your turn to take your premise and support it with evidence from the historical record. Do your research and show us that your rather 'unique interpretation' of the LBJ remarks is as you believe it to be.
Click to expand...


I'll be more than happy to prove that Republicans supported the CRA is higher percentages.

The original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The notion that Republicans are, "racists and wanted to deny blacks their rights", isn't supported by the factual information.
 
haymarket said:
Yup, you have proved me and others here true, You tactic is a simple one: unless somebody can produce statement after statement after statement from those 127 Southern Democrats which basically says

"Yes indeed America, I changed my party because I do so hate those African Americans and the party which is now sticking up for them so I am going to be a Republican from now because it is the new Southern White Peoples Party and I am a evil racist through and through from one side of my lily white body to the back side of my even whiter body on the ass side."


Anything short of that is going to have you keep insisting that nobody has offered any evidence.

And some uninformed people wonder why colleges demand and insist upon the successful completion of certain courses before students can take advanced courses where their opinions are expected to be defended.

from Wiggen to apdst



Have you ever been more wrong Wiggen wrong about any one thing you have ever said to anyone? :roll:
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you're going to need, to prove yourself correct. Unless you can read their minds, that is.
 
apdst said:
I hate to tell you this, but the, "Southern Strategy", is nothing more than propaganda. .
Click to expand...

Let me guess? There was no Holocaust? Up is down? Black is white? In is out?
 
apdst said:
I'll be more than happy to prove that Republicans supported the CRA is higher percentages.



The notion that Republicans are, "racists and wanted to deny blacks their rights", isn't supported by the factual information.
Click to expand...

That loud buzzer going BBBBBZZZZTTTTTT in the background is there to tell you that you failed to take the challenge. Nobody is disputing the numbers about the civil rights votes. That is clear. And you have conveniently ignored every single explanation that hs been presented to you regarding them.

What you were challenged to do was to support with evidence from the historical record that Johnson was referring to those numbers when he made his famous comment about losing the South in future elections. That was your challenge.

So where is that evidence from you own 'historical research'?

Again post 290

from Thunder

I believe it is Johnson who said "the Democrats have lost the South for a generation", after he signed the Civil Rights Act. And he was right.

these facts, are known well to most of us. unfortunately, we have a self-proclaimed historian amoungst us who is actually a very poor student of history.
Click to expand...

and the reply from apdst
Perhaps he was referring to the fact that congressional Republicans voted in favor of the CRA in significantly larger percentages than Democrats.
Click to expand...

Present your evidence that LBJ somehow someway was deluded enough to believe that the Southern voter was actually going to embrace the GOP because Northern Republicans had voted for the civil rights bills. This should be good.
 
Last edited:
tumblr_lwpcv8H0a91r8af5bo1_500.gif


monkey children?
 
Thunder said:
nor is your ridiculous claim that Liberals are just as racist as the KKK.
Click to expand...

Margaret Sanger created the Negro Project, so the facts actually do support that claim. She gave a speech at klan rally on the subject of eugneics involving the black community in America. She was a Progressive.

That's why it's so insanely ironic that MLK received the Margaret Sanger Award.
 
haymarket said:
That loud buzzer going BBBBBZZZZTTTTTT in the background is there to tell you that you failed to take the challenge. Nobody is disputing the numbers about the civil rights votes. That is clear. And you have conveniently ignored every single explanation that hs been presented to you regarding them.

What you were challenged to do was to support with evidence from the historical record that Johnson was referring to those numbers when he made his famous comment about losing the South in future elections. That was your challenge.

So where is that evidence from you own 'historical research'?

Again post 290

from Thunder



and the reply from apdst


Present your evidence that LBJ somehow someway was deluded enough to believe that the Southern voter was actually going to embrace the GOP because Northern Republicans had voted for the civil rights bills. This should be good.
Click to expand...

Do you know the meaning of the word, "perhaps"? I wasn't making a factual claim.
 
apdst said:
That's exactly what you're going to need, to prove yourself correct. Unless you can read their minds, that is.
Click to expand...

Yesterday apdst, I told you how historians prepare to do their work by taking methods of historical research courses while pursuing their degree in the field. I even went to the trouble of trying to help educate you by providing not one, not two, but three sources which would help you understand proper methodology of historical research. I did not use up valuable time for my benefit but to simply help you avoid the many mistakes you had already made in such areas like not giving proper weight to the statements of seceding states in 1861 which you repeatedly did.

You got angry and bragged that you did not need such education and you did not need a degree on the wall to do historical research and draw proper conclusions.

Your statement here proves to one and all just how badly you do need such training. Nobody is ever going to satisfy you and I told you repeatedly that you were engaging in intellectual fraud by setting the bar impossible high. I told you that you would accept no less that this fron those 127 Southern white Democrats who defected to the Republicans while few in other parts of the land did

"Yes indeed America, I changed my party because I do so hate those African Americans and the party which is now sticking up for them so I am going to be a Republican from now because it is the new Southern White Peoples Party and I am a evil racist through and through from one side of my lily white body to the back side of my even whiter body on the ass side."
Click to expand...

I predicted that and you came through as predicted and said this in response

That's exactly what you're going to need, to prove yourself correct. Unless you can read their minds, that is.
Click to expand...

You see apdst, one does not need to read minds. Again, this goes back to the academic training one in history goes through in order to properly interpret what there is available to the historian. One can read other sources from the era and combine it with election results and combine it with statements from the principals involved and combine it with other available data and make quite accurate and reasonable conclusions. You see apdst, that is the way the writing of history works.

Mind reading is not necessary. Never was necessary. And it is simply silly for you to bring it up as the only thing which you will ever accept.
 
Moderator's Warning:
All of the personal attacks need to stop now. There will be consequences if it continues.
 
apdst said:
Do you know the meaning of the word, "perhaps"? I wasn't making a factual claim.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that you reject your own allegation of the possible meaning of LBJ's words?
 
Margaret Sanger created the Negro Project, so the facts actually do support that claim. She gave a speech at klan rally on the subject of eugneics involving the black community in America. She was a Progressive.
Click to expand...
Her whole point was that disadvantage families should have less children so that they can better take care of those children. I see every conservative make thos same arguments when talking about welfare moms with 10 kids.
 
iliveonramen said:
Her whole point was that disadvantage families should have less children so that they can better take care of those children. I see every conservative make thos same arguments when talking about welfare moms with 10 kids.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with her point. I don't know of the woman, but there is wisdom in not having children you undoubtedly can't afford.
 
Wake said:
I don't disagree with her point. I don't know of the woman, but there is wisdom in not having children you undoubtedly can't afford.
Click to expand...

Well apparently she's become the boogyman of the right yet apparently most conservatives would agree with her. Go figure.
 
haymarket said:
So are you saying that you reject your own allegation of the possible meaning of LBJ's words?
Click to expand...

I didn't, "alledge", anything. I only pointed out a possible alternate explanation of the meaning of his comments.

It was yet another cue from someone to prove me wrong.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well apparently she's become the boogyman of the right yet apparently most conservatives would agree with her. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't know of the history between them. What matters to me is the wisdom of that one point of hers.
 
apdst said:
I didn't, "alledge", anything. I only pointed out a possible alternate explanation of the meaning of his comments.

It was yet another cue from someone to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

How can someone prove you wrong when you yourself will not even first take the position as yours?
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
Her whole point was that disadvantage families should have less children so that they can better take care of those children. I see every conservative make thos same arguments when talking about welfare moms with 10 kids.
Click to expand...

Um, no...that wasn't the point.

Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The point was, genocide and Sanger was a Progressive. i.e. a Liberal.
 
haymarket said:
How can someone prove you wrong when you yourself will not even first take the position as yours?
Click to expand...

It's easy:

1) I offer an alternate explanation.

2) Someone else posts evidence proving that alternate explanation impossible.

Now, I offered an alternate explanation, then I offered evidence supporting that alternate explanation.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well apparently she's become the boogyman of the right yet apparently most conservatives would agree with her. Go figure.
Click to expand...

She's a hero of the Left...go figger!

Since you brought it up, please post evidence that most Conservatives agree with genocide. Thaaaaaaanks!!
 
Thunder said:
Margaret Sanger represents modern-day Liberalism and modern-day Liberals?

:lamo:lamo

If that's the case, then Madison Grant represents modern-day Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Libbos seem to think that Nazis represent modern Conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom