Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[KabeRinnaul]

So I'm just wondering where abouts the change happened, and why, and why then, if one group at one time thought it was bad, why another group would "adopt" that philosophy, as it were.

Try the first link.

In summary, Democrats adopted what were Republican expansionist stances in the 1900s because they were competing with each other for votes in the young Western states, and those ideals were popular in the developing West. The Republicans, to differentiate themselves from the Democrats, began shifting towards small government. The modern ideologies progressed from there.

As the article argues, the GOP have always been the party of big business. In the early years, business wanted big government to develop infrastructure. Later on, business wanted small government to limit regulation.

And apparently social policy follows economic policy.

[s_stabeler]

put it this way: yes, Lincoln was a republican. Topday, he would probably have been a democrat. ( though I'm not 100% sure: I remember reading somewhere a quote from Lincoln that if he could win the war without emancipating slaves, he would)

as for the Johnson administration, it was actually precisely then that the democrats shed their admittedly racist roots. LBJ himself is an example: in 1938, he opposed civil rights. (Indeed, helping to torpedo a civil rights bill.) In 1963, as President, he more-or-less forced throuhg the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the teeth of determined resistance. Oh, and it was under him that the Democrats formally banned racists from the Democratic convention- any state that embraced racism would from then on not be able to vote in the DemocraticNational Convention.

[Kheldarson]

though I'm not 100% sure: I remember reading somewhere a quote from Lincoln that if he could win the war without emancipating slaves, he would)

Yep. His main goal was to keep the Union together. If he could've done that peacefully and it meant keeping slavery, that's what he would've gone with.

[HYHYBT]

That is a familiar argument, is it not?

If you don't agree that the argument is correct, argue against it. With facts, connected by logical reasoning, presented IN TEXT, preferably in your own words.

[mjr]

Ah, the tactic of "just point things out" while being utterly devoid of any point or content except to push a bias. It's right up there with "Just asking the question" with intellectual dishonest 'debate.'

Ah, I see..."shoot the messenger".

There's nothing wrong with that tactic. Everyone has biases. Sometimes "just pointing things out" leads to a discussion, sometimes it doesn't. I can't control that.

Yeah, he at least wears his bias on his sleeve.

As does everyone who posts in here.

[mjr]

If you don't agree that the argument is correct, argue against it. With facts, connected by logical reasoning, presented IN TEXT, preferably in your own words.

Here's a fact for you:

One party tells a group of people, based solely on the pigmentation of their skin, that they can't get ahead and that they NEED government's help to do so.

Another doesn't.

One of those stances seems racist to me.

[the_std]

As does everyone who posts in here.

HA. HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHA.

Really? "They don't agree with me, so they're all biased"? That's the tactic you're going with? That's a solid argument right there.

[Gravekeeper]

Here's a fact for you:

One party tells a group of people, based solely on the pigmentation of their skin, that they can't get ahead and that they NEED government's help to do so.

Another doesn't.

One of those stances seems racist to me.

You've got to be kidding me. -.-

If this place is so awash in filthy liberalism than by all means leave ( you can even pretend that the nasty liberals ran you out if it makes you feel better ). You've certainly done nothing in your time here except incite conflict through intellectually dishonest BS like this. Then when confronted on it you go straight to a persecution complex about how everything is biased against you. You've shown little interest in actually discussing or debating ideas and you merely parrot other people's arguments.

This kind of shit is not what this website is for or about.

[Kara_CS]

Southern democrats were historically racist, and resisted the civil rights movement by working against their own party. That changed from the LBJ to the Reagan administration, due to the party shift caused by Dixiecrats infiltrating the Republican party. If you want to talk about the history of US politics and can't understand that the GOP stopped being the party of Lincoln 50 years ago, you need to brush up on your political history. Your sources are not wrong, but they only tell the part of history that you want to use in your argument and are therefore intentionally misleading.

I could explain the history of the mid to late 20th century political shift that occurred between 1948 and LBJ's presidency, but since we're just letting links to the talking:

Southern Strategy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

The Dixiecrat Revolt
http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/347

Boll Weevil Democats
http://crooksandliars.com/gordonsken...nd-boll-weevil

[mjr]

HA. HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHA.

Really? "They don't agree with me, so they're all biased"?

Nope. Just stating a fact.

I have biases, and you do, too.

Do you deny that?

[mjr]

You've got to be kidding me. -.-

If this place is so awash in filthy liberalism than by all means leave ( you can even pretend that the nasty liberals ran you out if it makes you feel better ). You've certainly done nothing in your time here except incite conflict through intellectually dishonest BS like this. Then when confronted on it you go straight to a persecution complex about how everything is biased against you. You've shown little interest in actually discussing or debating ideas and you merely parrot other people's arguments.

This kind of shit is not what this website is for or about.

Thanks for the personal attacks!

[the_std]

Nope. Just stating a fact. I have biases, and you do, too. Do you deny that?

I deny that you are "just stating a fact". You're using hilarious tactics to try to hide the fact that your arguments are poor and that you can't actually defend the points you're making. Your "debating" is pretty funny to me.

[mjr]

NOW we're getting somewhere...Thank you, Kara_CS.

[Andara Bledin]

One party tells a group of people, based solely on the pigmentation of their skin, that they can't get ahead and that they NEED government's help to do so.

Citation needed.

Seriously, if you have a point to make, back it up with something other than appealing to your own or some unknown authority, because so far, all you've proven is that you're not very well-educated on the matter you're attempting to discuss.

[Greenday]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, though. Ask college-age kids if they know this history. See what they tell you. Ask High School age kids. I'd wager that if you as most people, a significant number of them wouldn't know this history.

And it'd matter if they'd know it...why? Who cares if they know this stuff? It's not relevant to today's society.