Democrats in history - Let's take a look.

[Beco]

Democrats voted the first black President in the 21st Century.

Whoop deeee do!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Republican's elected the first black U.S. Senator, and the first black member of the House Of Representatives in the 19th Century. Tell us about Democrat racial tolerance in the 18th Century.

Both of those "firsts" were before the ideological realignment of the parties. Sort of like you claiming Republicans are the "Party of Lincoln", technically true, but the ideology was fundamentally different. Lincoln wouldn't recognize the modern Republican Party, let alone be a member.

Every time you point out something progressive done by republicans, it was before they were the "conservative" party.

 

[Karen Kraft]

I don't know who's brain you're using to spoon feed you this post, but whoever it is is ignoring, as I pointed out earlier, the ideological realignment of the political partie
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WHATEVER
ed, left almost to the man, to the Republican party decades go because they Democratic Party didn't oppress women enough or wasn't racist enough for them.

NewSpeak:

The Democrats were always in favor of helping Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Minorities. Oh, wait. They weren't? Okay, lets' call the "bad ones" (80% some years) DIXICRATS. Now we can pretend we aren't the party of the KKK anymore.

It's like calling fat women "big boned" or "full figured" You only fool the ones who wish to be fooled.

The Democrats have supported Black subjugation from the very beginning, without exception (well, except Bill Clinton):

They supported slavery
They supported Jim Crow
They supported KKK
They supported school segregation

-----

After 1964 they supported Welfare -- the one way to keep the slaves down on the farm, so to speak. Republicans tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that is what Democrats call "racism."

For 40 years, the Democrats have been treating Blacks as pets and farm animals, and you know it.

... and they treat any Black who DARES to voice a conservative point of view the same way they treated Dred Scott. Same people, same attitude.

You know goddamn well what the history is! Why shade it and spin it by redefining the "bad Democrats" as something not exactly Democrat.

Now, I'm not saying that the Democrat Party is evil. I don't see things that way. Given the choice of hanging out or going camping with two dozen democrats or two dozen republicans, LOL-- The Dems Have It !!!!

What I am saying is this: Please show the respect to the points of view held by Republicans and conservative Blacks, Hispanics, and Women that you would expect in return. The endless ad hominem attack on people who stray from the plantation is the greatest embarrassment the party will ever know.

 

[PannieMonster]

Neither was Sen. Byrd, also one of the Dixiecrats. But for the most part, and I mean the vast majority, the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party for the Republicans because they opposed racial integration and equal rights for minorities and were welcomed with open arms.

Also, like Sen. Byrd, George Wallace denounced his pro-segregation attitudes later in life.

Yes, politics as usual. Just like Arlan Sphincter being a democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat.

Upset? Nope, I'll just laugh, at you.

Good, because you know I can come up with some pretty funny lines at times.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Karen Kraft]

Both of those "firsts" were before the ideological realignment of the parties. Sort of like you claiming Republicans are the "Party of Lincoln", technically true, but the ideology was fundamentally different. Lincoln wouldn't recognize the modern Republican Party, let alone be a member.

Every time you point out something progressive done by republicans, it was before they were the "conservative" party.

.... or simply put:

If it was a GOOD thing, it was done by what we NOW call "Democrats."

If is was a BAD thing, there are some other labels we will use to describe them.

The re-alignment actually is more about Republican Democrats and Whigs, etc. than the Civil Rights Movement.

Revisionist history is a very sad joke.

 

[sphy2]

Yes, politics as usual. Just like Arlan Sphincter being a democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat.

So Basically you're saying there are bad eggs in politics?

 

[PannieMonster]

So Basically you're saying there are bad eggs in politics?

On both sides of the aisle.

 

[sphy2]

.... or simply put:

If it was a GOOD thing, it was done by what we NOW call "Democrats."

If is was a BAD thing, there are some other labels we will use to describe them.

The re-alignment actually is more about Republican Democrats and Whigs, etc. than the Civil Rights Movement.

Revisionist history is a very sad joke.

Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican, damn flip-flopper...

 

[sphy2]

On both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm I chose to show in the form of an

Corruption in Politics? Who'dathunkit?

Point is the Republican Party seems to have had more than it's fair share of corrupt politicians over the last 15 years. I'm pretty sure that's the biggest reason behind the fall of the Republican "permanent" majority to it's current numbers.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican, damn flip-flopper...

Yeah, but Mary Todd was one hot firecracker.

... and her tiny hands made getting fisted by her a pleasure!


* sigh *

But she wasn't as good in bed and Mary See.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

NewSpeak:

The Democrats were always in favor of helping Blacks, Hispanics, Women, Minorities. Oh, wait. They weren't? Okay, lets' call the "bad ones" (80% some years) DIXICRATS. Now we can pretend we aren't the party of the KKK anymore.

It's like calling fat women "big boned" or "full figured" You only fool the ones who wish to be fooled.

The Democrats have supported Black subjugation from the very beginning, without exception (well, except Bill Clinton):

They supported slavery
They supported Jim Crow
They supported KKK
They supported school segregation

-----

After 1964 they supported Welfare -- the one way to keep the slaves down on the farm, so to speak. Republicans tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and that is what Democrats call "racism."

For 40 years, the Democrats have been treating Blacks as pets and farm animals, and you know it.

... and they treat any Black who DARES to voice a conservative point of view the same way they treated Dred Scott. Same people, same attitude.

You know goddamn well what the history is! Why shade it and spin it by redefining the "bad Democrats" as something not exactly Democrat.

Now, I'm not saying that the Democrat Party is evil. I don't see things that way. Given the choice of hanging out or going camping with two dozen democrats or two dozen republicans, LOL-- The Dems Have It !!!!

What I am saying is this: Please show the respect to the points of view held by Republicans and conservative Blacks, Hispanics, and Women that you would expect in return. The endless ad hominem attack on people who stray from the plantation is the greatest embarrassment the party will ever know.

So what you're trying to say is that the very conservative wing of the Democratic Party. The ones who supported all of those things you named off, didn't defect and join the Republican Party?

Not really big on history are you? A short lesson for you.

Look up Dixiecrat or The States' Rights Democratic Party: a segregationist, socially conservative political party that associated itself with the American Democratic Party until 1948.

As the Democratic Party leadership moved toward a more progressive stance toward civil rights and liberties the "Dixiecrats" drifted away from the mainstream Democratic Party. For over 100 years the white southerners that had overwhelmingly been Democrats bolted from the Democratic Party when Truman tried to abolish racial segregation in favor of their own third party Presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond. In the years following Thurmond's defeat the Dixiecrats were absorbed into the Republican Party.

So yes, the racist, segregationist faction of the Democratic party was absorbed by the Republican Party.. and it shows.

 

[unregistered]

 

[rosco rathbone]

KK hath power "to make the worse appear the better reason".

Lit's premier sophist.

 

[TurdFergeson]

More than likely I accused him of being brainwashed.

My brain needs washing. It's dirty,

 

[RobDownSouth]

So what you're trying to say is that the very conservative wing of the Democratic Party. The ones who supported all of those things you named off, didn't defect and join the Republican Party?

Not really big on history are you? A short lesson for you.

Look up Dixiecrat or The States' Rights Democratic Party: a segregationist, socially conservative political party that associated itself with the American Democratic Party until 1948.

As the Democratic Party leadership moved toward a more progressive stance toward civil rights and liberties the "Dixiecrats" drifted away from the mainstream Democratic Party. For over 100 years the white southerners that had overwhelmingly been Democrats bolted from the Democratic Party when Truman tried to abolish racial segregation in favor of their own third party Presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond. In the years following Thurmond's defeat the Dixiecrats were absorbed into the Republican Party.

So yes, the racist, segregationist faction of the Democratic party was absorbed by the Republican Party.. and it shows.

Mr. Kraft appears to be as willfully ignorant of history as Vetteman on this point. Both men appear to be unable to reconcile the fact that there were once liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.

 

[Karen Kraft]

So what you're trying to say is that the very conservative wing of the Democratic Party. The ones who supported all of those things you named off, didn't defect and join the Republican Party?

Not really big on history are you? A short lesson for you.

Look up Dixiecrat or The States' Rights Democratic Party: a segregationist, socially conservative political party that associated itself with the American Democratic Party until 1948.

As the Democratic Party leadership moved toward a more progressive stance toward civil rights and liberties the "Dixiecrats" drifted away from the mainstream Democratic Party. For over 100 years the white southerners that had overwhelmingly been Democrats bolted from the Democratic Party when Truman tried to abolish racial segregation in favor of their own third party Presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond. In the years following Thurmond's defeat the Dixiecrats were absorbed into the Republican Party.

So yes, the racist, segregationist faction of the Democratic party was absorbed by the Republican Party.. and it shows.

Not at all.

They became the George Wallace people. American Independent guys.

They did not become Republicans, since "Republican" was the same as "Satan" as far as most Southerners were concerned! Party of Lincoln was not a badge of honor but an expletive, for godsakes.

But I wasn't there at the time, I will defer to your personal recollection of Wallace, Maddox, Kefauver, Byrd, et al.

As for the timing: keep this one in mind:

"In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian-Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking." - Joe Biden

I guess he missed that whole "realignment" deal, eh?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Just for shits and giggles look at the election map map of 1896 colored by party supported: blue for Democrat, red for Republican of course.:

vs the one from 2004, nearly a complete inverse.

Nope, no major political realignment at all..

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Not at all.

They became the George Wallace people. American Independent guys.

They did not become Republicans, since "Republican" was the same as "Satan" as far as most Southerners were concerned! Party of Lincoln was not a badge of honor but an expletive, for godsakes.

But I wasn't there at the time, I will defer to your personal recollection of Wallace, Maddox, Kefauver, Byrd, et al.

Who were later accepted with open arms by the Republican party. Which is why the south is overwhelmingly Republican now.

I don't need "personal recollection", I read. Anathema to many "conservatives," but not Liberals.

 

[thør]

My brain needs washing. It's dirty,

You can get a tabletop machine to keep that brain squeaky clean.

http://kassandraproject.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/brainwashing02.gif

 

[Karen Kraft]

You ARE saying the realignment is a 19th century deal?

I thought your posts were putting in in the mid 20th C.

What the fuck ARE you trying to say?

 

[PannieMonster]

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm I chose to show in the form of an

Corruption in Politics? Who'dathunkit?

Point is the Republican Party seems to have had more than it's fair share of corrupt politicians over the last 15 years. I'm pretty sure that's the biggest reason behind the fall of the Republican "permanent" majority to it's current numbers.

The Democrats have had just as many. You just overlook it.

 

[PannieMonster]

Just for shits and giggles look at the election map map of 1896 colored by party supported: blue for Democrat, red for Republican of course.:

vs the one from 2004, nearly a complete inverse.

Nope, no major political realignment at all..

Maybe you should show what that "alignment" looked like in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Maybe you should show what that "alignment" looked like in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000

Realclearpolitics has a decent article on the subject.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/04/race_realignment_and_the_elect.html

 

[sphy2]

The Democrats have had just as many. You just overlook it.

I'm pretty sure the Republicans have had more. And with the recent announcement that Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture we could see a heck of a lot more coming down the tubes.