More people should laugh at the partisan clowns at CNN:
PAUL: (Laughs) No. I’ve always been a Republican, and I’m one of those people who actually is a real lover of the history of the Republican Party from the days of abolition to the days of civil rights. The Republican Party has a really rich history. In our state, I’m really proud of the fact that the ones who overturned Jim Crow in Kentucky were Republicans fighting against an entirely unified Democratic Party, so I am proud to be Republican. I can’t imagine being anything else.
What an idiot she is. Why would he want to become a member of the true racist party?
“The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”[13]”
well, Thurmond found his views unacceptable to the majority of the democratic party and he joined the GOP
as one of the leaders of the revival of the southern GOP. The Dixiecrats were racists. They found that they were less and less welcome in the democratic party and they moved over to the GOP.
People who believe that black people can’t make it without “affirmative action” and government hand outs are racists.
statistically speaking most of those handouts are given to caucasians.
Mostly in Red states.
In total numbers, it’s true that more whites are drawing welfare benefits than other races. However, as a percentage of each race’s population, that isn’t the case at all.
Actually, DN-guy, “those views” were quite acceptable to the majority of Democrats, which is why Senator Robert Byrd (D) had no problem staying in the Democrats while being a member of the KKK, and using racist language til the end of his days.
What actually happened is that most of the “Dixiecrats” were patriots who loved America, who were only Democrats because only the Democrats would support their favored solution to “The Problem” (For all that they were supposed to be Racists, it’s odd that Africa-Americans were quickly becoming part of the middle class under their solution, as opposed the the current “solution”, which has created an entire class of EBT slaves. Funny that. Almost like the Democrats never stopped being Racist, and just changed their tactics…………). Once the Democrats ended their support for that particular racist solution, they had nothing in common with the Communist wing Democrats and joined the Republicans (once they had been vetted, to insure, as best as can be done lacking telepathy, they had recanted their racist positions. Mind, that was a minority of Dixiecrats. Most Dixiecrats, of course, stayed Democrats, like Robert Byrd, of West Virginia fame, and Sam Ervin, of Segregationist and WaterGate fame. But keep pushing the “Big Lie”……
After reconstruction ended following the Civil War, Democrats controlled southern politics for decades with the “Solid South” only beginning to break in the mid 1960s. All of the odious Jim Crow laws were enacted by Democrats. Segregation was enacted by Democrats and it was Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent desegregation of the University of Alabama. It was Democrat (and DNC member) T. Eugene “Bull” Connor who turned the fire hoses on civil rights protesters in Birmingham in 1963. It was Democrat Lester Maddox who sold “Pickrick Drumsticks” (axe handles) at his whites-only restaurant to beat any black who wanted to buy a meal. He was elected governor in Georgia after this. It was Democrats who raised the Confederate flag above many southern state capital buildings. Al Gore, Senior, Democrat from Tennessee voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So did Bill Clinton’s mentor, Senator William Fulbright. Only one southern Democrat voted for it and he was from Texas. All of these men remained Democrats for the rest of their lives.
The final vote totals for the 1964 Civil Rights Act were:
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Yes! Understand that, thanks to the rules the Founders gave us, it is a “Winner take all” system, and that means a two party system (Or one party winning all the time, until such time as the losers figure out they need to work together to stop the winning party…….). Our choices are Stupid or Evil, and at least Stupid gets it right about half the time. It’s why there is no Republican Detroit. It takes dedication, hard work, and a willful denial of Reality to screw up that badly…….
Having been to Mississippi and Georgia, I’m not so impressed by your claims.
Mississippi has been a disaster zone for 150 years.
Georgia, well, lets say I saw some pretty amazing poverty there.
Is Detroit approaching those levels? It’s a mess but it isn’t there yet.
Alas, both have been Democrat Strongholds for most of that time, and things improved quickly when the Republicans took over in Mississippi, which is why we didn’t get endless news stories about how bad things were when Katrina hit Mississippi (A direct hit, as opposed to missing Democrat controlled Louisiana/New Orleans). Because the Republican governor had his act together. A very good compare/contrast example showing the different competence levels between Democrats and Republicans. Thanks for bringing it up!
Second, coming up from poverty is hard, and thanks to the Democrats, Georgia and Mississippi have be poor for a long time. Maintaining your wealth level is easy, but Detroit, under the Democrats, couldn’t handle even that………..
well, if Mississippi and Georgia would stop sucking off the Federal tit,
you might have some argument, but These are huge beneficiaries of
federal largesse.
If the South ever were to get cutoff, from federal benefits, they’d starve in a month.
Yes, as was and is Detroit. Rather the point. The federal funds the Democrats push on people is poison, which is why the areas that get them, Democrat controlled as a rule (Got’s to bring home the Pork to get Reelected, don’t you know!) are poorer and generally in worse shape then the areas denied them. And, of course, where did those “federal funds” come from? I think those areas would be doing better keeping their money, as opposed to the current system, where they send it to D.C., which charges a “handling fee”, and then sends it back, with strings. I’m pretty sure those areas would not, in point of fact, “starve in a month” if this were done.
And, really, how do we know that “whites” are drawing any benifits, in this age of “White Hispanic”? What games are being played with the numbers and categories?