WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP

No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

Mr Oldiesfreak, you may want to look up the term "revisionist." It does not mean "factual", "supported by reality", or something similar.

I mean, good god man, your main piece of evidence here was Pat Buchanan claiming the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism. Next you'll be quoting Pol Pot to "prove" that the Democratic Kampuchea regime had nothing to do with killing people.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  

"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.

And why, Mr Oldiesfreak, was switching parties expedient?
 

"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"

This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!

You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?

Please explain the difference between using a Pat Buchanan quote and National Review articles to 'prove' that the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism and using a Pol Pot quote and RevLeft posts to 'prove' that the Khmer Rouge regime had nothing to do with killing people.
After you have done that, please source your claim on public education having a left-wing bias.

 And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

You know, an actual example of the consensus being wrong (there are plenty) would have been much more helpful than this absurd comparison.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

[facehoof]
If Southern white racists joined the party between '64 and '68, were the Republicans the same group of people?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue.

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I'm really tired with your crap. You won't find a single person here who'd deny civil rights origins of the GOP and the Democrat's evil past regarding this issue._

Knowing history is good, but not when you're using it as an excuse to ignore the present reality which may not be pleaseant for you.

It's not a present reality.  And nobody here may deny this history, but plenty of high-profile Democrats have and they just pretend that they were the heroes of civil rights and that all the horrible things that happened to blacks throughout our history were caused by Republicans.

Who?


This guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco

That actually has nothing to do with your previous argument. [fixed your link]

This woman chairs the DNC, and she's suggesting that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow, so it's clearly imllicit that she is projecting her party's past as the party of Jim Crow on Republicans.

It's quite pathetic that you're moving the other team's goalposts.