It's standard practice for Righties who don't have the courage to question their own beliefs, a form of running away. The idealized righteous ball breaking Sheriff Joe fits well with what they want to believe. When the reality is different, they'll avoid it to maintain belief.
It's standard practice for Righties who don't have the courage to question their own beliefs, a form of running away. The idealized righteous ball breaking Sheriff Joe fits well with what they want to believe. When the reality is different, they'll avoid it to maintain belief.
your'e a strange bird, rudeguy.
Hitler was a fascist, dingbat.
Anyway, let's all be sure to remember your strange love for this psychopath the next time you rail about unchecked police power in these forums. methinks you have no real convictions in life regarding an issue; you merely side with the perspective that best angers your perceived "enemies.
For whatever reason, I like you rudeguy; but you truly come off as a loudmouth one-issue type that really has no skin in the game--just ready and willing to rage at the things that your club tells you to rage at.
I have noted an effort in the last few years by folks on the right to try to re-badge Hitler as a lefty. Glen Beck seems to be particularly pushing this.
The really odd thing is when you compare the issues that drove Hitler and the Nazi's against the issues that drive the American left and right it's a starkly obvious match for the wacko right.
It takes a weird twisted view to support many of the ideals of the Nazi's: hatred of immigrants, hatred of commies, hatred of homosexuals, hatred of, well just about everyone. And then the attempt to attach this legacy of hatred with the left.
True is false, up is down, wrong is right...
Brian
nickqt
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 7,667
- 8,021
- 136
Modern conservatism is built upon the twin pillars of projection and cognitive dissonance.
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,676
- 5,208
- 136
The answer to your question above is.....NO.
The answer to your statement, "I'm ready and willing to learn" is also absolutely false, as numerous people have tried to educate you with facts instead of innuendo and you still refuse to acknowledge them.
Of course, you also cannot answer the question of when did the Southern states become conservative, since you're using the age-old and tired "Democrats voted for Jim Crow" or other variants of that and implying by that use that the South was liberal. So, when did the Southern culture turn conservative from its liberal leanings? Can't answer that, can you? Of course you can't because the South has never been liberal. Period.
The facts.....the South has always been conservative and probably always will. Dispute this fact. You can't.
Fact.....southern Democrats prior to 1960 were conservatives. Dispute this. You can't.
Fact.....in the 1964 Presidential election between Goldwater and Johnson, Goldwater carried 6 states. Remember, Goldwater's nomination by the Republican party split the party. The conservative faction of the party got their candidate nominated instead of Rockefeller, who was the nominal candidate until Goldwater's campaign brought up Rockefeller's marriage of a divorced woman, using the morality argument to scuttle Rockefeller's nomination. The conservative faction took control of the party at that point, disaffecting the centrist/moderate Republicans, a faction within the Repub. party that had been the dominate faction until 1964.
Goldwater was so conservative that he lost in a landslide, carrying 6 states.....South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona (Goldwater's home state.) So, if the South was so liberal, because you know, Democrats, why was the deep South the only region that Goldwater carried?
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted upon, why did the Southern "liberal" Democrats vote against it? And of course, every Republican should've voted for it to pass, given your insinuations. But that didn't happen, did it? Or don't you know who voted for and against it, do you?
Here's the breakdown of voting by party and region.....in the breakdown below, "Southern" refers to the 11 states that made up the Confederacy. "Northern" refers to all the other 39 states. The vote counts refer to the bill as it originally passed out of the respective chamber of Congress.
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 787 (793%)
- Southern Republicans: 010 (0100%)
- Northern Democrats: 1459 (946%)
- Northern Republicans: 13824 (8515%)
The Senate version:
- Southern Democrats: 120 (595%)
- Southern Republicans: 01 (0100%)
- Northern Democrats: 451 (982%)
- Northern Republicans: 275 (8416%)
So, notice a pattern? Southern Democrats voted against it, as did Southern Republicans. Northern Democrats voted for it, as did most Northern Republicans. (These were roll call votes, so the breakdown and numbers are easily verifiable by anyone who can read.....)
But that makes no difference to you, does it? You'd rather believe the feces fed to you by at minimum questionable sources instead of facts.
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,676
- 5,208
- 136
I know, Rude's just trolling.....because no one can be that stupid. But, I try to educate about facts, something a lot of right leaning persons seem unable to grasp. Just like pointing that out.
That and to show Rude's just trolling because he'll never dispute anything I posted, just ignore it, which shows the hypocrisy he and others of his ilk wallow in.
nickqt
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 7,667
- 8,021
- 136
In addition to the observable reality you posted above, what is also clear is that Southern Democrats were more likely to vote for civil rights than Southern Republicans in both the House and Senate.I know, Rude's just trolling.....because no one can be that stupid. But, I try to educate about facts, something a lot of right leaning persons seem unable to grasp. Just like pointing that out.
That and to show Rude's just trolling because he'll never dispute anything I posted, just ignore it, which shows the hypocrisy he and others of his ilk wallow in.
Civil rights legislation is what led the south from being almost totally Democratic in 1960 to almost totally Republican today. Heroes like ol' Strom Thurmond decided that being a Democrat was no longer a good thing after the civil rights legislation, and switched parties from the Democratic party to the Republican party. Dixiecrats is a term that comes to mind for Democrats of the South who couldn't stand civil rights legislation and attempted to prevent it from happening before abandoning the Democratic party for the Republicans.
After Goldwater, we got Lee Atwater and Nixon's Southern Strategy which worked great and is basically the only reason the Republican party is able to win the Electoral College.
St. Ronald Reagan used it effectively in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Hoo boy did he let out some good ol' dog whistles!
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
Completly untrue, but it's funny how every time this lame ass bullshit comes up, all the usual suspects repeat it.
Because he's the ONLY one you can name! The ONLY one!
Because ol' Robert Byrd, and Al Gore Sr. and so on.. yadda yadda.
You guys are hilarious. Anything but admit the Democrat party was the one of Jim Crow and racism. Nope, you've shifted it all to "blame the Republicans, whitewash the true history of the Democrat party!"
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,947
- 126
Yup. Us nazi communist liberal socialists are trying to change history because we are all racists who would fight for the confederacy while all the republicans would be on the union side.
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
You're probably one who thinks Lincoln was a Democrat!
The same stupid shit always comes up in this lame ass topic. You guys just shift all blame of the Democrat Party's horrible history over to the Republcians with that ridiculous lie that "they all switched" when of course they all didn't- the only prominent one that did was Storm Thurmond. Others like Byrd were never 'punished' within the Democrat Party, he was rewarded.
Democrats have been running a Southern Strategy since Kennedy. Were Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Edwards other than southerners?
But we know- when Democrats court the south and use it to win elections (running southern candidates no less!) it's because the south is so liberal and Democrats love black people!
If a Republican like Goldwater or Nixon wins a southern state (Goldwater an NAACP member, Nixon's Civil Rights record actually far better and more extensive than Kennedy's) it's because they are evil racists.
Every fault of the Democrat party including all of its history of courting racists= The Republican's fault! If ONE prominant Dixiecrat switches parties it morphs into= "They ALL switched parties, all the racism is Republican's fault!! Republcians= racists, hereby resonsible for all southern Democrat racism."
The fact that the reality is the majority of major Dixiecrats remained with the Democrat Party and were perfectly welcomed there= "NUH UH!! No way!!! Well.. that doesn't mean anything!! That's different!! Don't bring up Byrd and Gore Sr. while I bring up Thurmond!! Republican's fault!!!!! Democrats= not racist, Republicans are!!"
The whole subject is fucking lame, but leave it to the usual suspects to keep repeating the same old tired shit.
nickqt
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 7,667
- 8,021
- 136
Hey delusional conservative.
Southerners in general were the racists in favor of Jim Crow. As this post aptly demonstrates:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37356289&postcount=79
Once the civil rights legislation was passed, yes, your ol' hero Strom Thurmond switched parties. And within 25 years, the solid Democratic South had pretty much switched over to being a solid Republican South. Just a coincidence, or something, probably having something to do with freedom.
Of course, here in observable reality, Lee Atwater, the brain behind Nixon's Southern Strategy, admitted the Southern Strategy and the Republican party pickup of the racist, conservative South after civil rights legislation. But of course as a conservative, you have no room for observable reality. Too much cognitive dissonance! Gross! Let the double-think wash over you...much more comfortable. Ahh, feels better!
So, go back to filling your brain with Master Limbaugh's neural vomit so you can live comfortably in your bubble without admitting just how bad your political heroes are or how much you've been lied to and believed it, because Freedom, and also Vi̶n̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶F̶o̶s̶t̶e̶r̶ Benghazi.
Oh, and watch out, DeathPanels are being convened right now under the authority of Agenda21 agents, made up of preteen hispanic children with calves the size of cantaloupes, who will be coming here shortly to spread the ebola they've been inoculated with by ISIS before taking your guns away and shipping you off to FEMA camps to be gay married.
I'm fairly certain Glenn Beck and Alex Jones know the truth, as they just picked up the transmission with their left crown molars, which is how they know it's not just misinformation. Master Beck even drew out a very good diagram on his chalkboard! Don't forget to buy gold coins, as hyperinflation is just around the corner!
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,676
- 5,208
- 136
Another one. Geez.
Answer this....when was the South liberal? When did the South have this mysterious major culture shift from being liberal to conservative?
And sorry to inform you, but the South's always been conservative. Again, the 1964 Presidental election shows this. Goldwater, an ultra conservative---so conservative that he split the Republican party--only carried the most conservative states.....5 southern states and Arizona.
True, 60 years ago the South was Democratic and they were indeed conservatives. After the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the election of '64, the conservatives in the South were essentially disenfranchised from the Democratic party (hence the "Southern" Dems voting against the Civil Rights Act and the "Northern" Dems voting for the Act, but don't let facts get in your way.)
And the same happened to the Republicans. The Republican party, until the 1960's, was dominated by the moderate/centrist element, until 1964. Goldwater essentially forced the moderate Repubs. to leave the party and join the "northern" liberal Democrats, leaving the Southern conservatives to be picked up by the now conservative dominated Republican party in Nixon's Southern Strategy.
But you already know this.....and are trolling, too. If you're not trolling, you are incredibly stupid.
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
This is so fucking stupid, but of course it flies with the total morons you're playing to.
No one says the south was liberal, you idiot.
The point is, the Democrat party isn't the 'liberal' party you pretend it is. It's a party that's been perfectly fine with being in bed with southern Democrats to win elections and further itself. It's NEVER really been the party that's for 'the little guy' or has given two shits about black people other than as pawns on either side of the the slavery/segregation coin. The REAL Democrat Party (Northern included) was perfectly fine with blacks being slaves, was perfectly fine with Jim Crow, was perfectly fine with Japanese internment camps, was perfectly fine with segregation, was perfectly fine with watering down and opposing Civil Rights legislation- so long as it fit the party's goals of furthering itself. Today, it's perfectly fine with blacks staying angry and still feeling segregated/impoverished so long as that translates into vilifying the other side, and votes.
Liberals may be Democrats that fall hook, line and sinker for all the bullshit of the Democrat Party, but the Democrat Party never was, never has been just a bunch of 'liberals' out for "the little guy" as you dumb-asses believe.
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
Again, you're running with your idiotic bullshit. What a moron.
"Democrat= liberal! How dare anyone not believe this!! Wahh!"
No it doesn't you fucking retard. You just fell for that. It's a party that laughs at you for whitewashing its actual history, and really thinking it's all that different from the Republican Party you love to vilify so much.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,947
- 126
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
It's clear you don't know HOW to read. And certainly not think.
You (like most Democrat morons) actually think the Democrat party runs southern candidates time and time again as anything other than a *GASP!!* southern strategy.
The son and the mentor of two of the biggest Democrat racists ever!
But heaven forbid a guy from California wins a southern state along with the entire country by a landslid= RACISM!!
Fucking amazingly stupid how a party that's so overt in what it does (ACTIVELY courting the south, blatantly, for 50 fucking years and more!) is actually defended by a bunch of complete fucking retards trying to point fingers at the other side for doing the same. ONLY in the dumbshit world of politics can people engage in something so stupid with a straight face.
You (like most Democrat morons) actually think the Democrat party runs southern candidates time and time again as anything other than a *GASP!!* southern strategy.
The son and the mentor of two of the biggest Democrat racists ever!
But heaven forbid a guy from California wins a southern state along with the entire country by a landslid= RACISM!!
Fucking amazingly stupid how a party that's so overt in what it does (ACTIVELY courting the south, blatantly, for 50 fucking years and more!) is actually defended by a bunch of complete fucking retards trying to point fingers at the other side for doing the same. ONLY in the dumbshit world of politics can people engage in something so stupid with a straight face.
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,676
- 5,208
- 136
No one is defending the southern conservative Democrats or their actions, putz.
When the Democratic party became liberal everywhere, to match the northeastern liberals, the southern conservatives were left hanging. The Republicans moved in. Hard to understand yet?
The South is, has been and always will be conservative. The Repubs moved to the conservative side of the ledger and the Dems moved to the liberal/progressive side. Simple as that. No one is excusing the behavior of 60 years ago, but to suggest the Dem. party of today is the same as it was in the 1950's, or that the Repub. party of the 1950's is the same as the Repub. party today, is either being a troll, intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Your choice.
When the Democratic party became liberal everywhere, to match the northeastern liberals, the southern conservatives were left hanging. The Republicans moved in. Hard to understand yet?
The South is, has been and always will be conservative. The Repubs moved to the conservative side of the ledger and the Dems moved to the liberal/progressive side. Simple as that. No one is excusing the behavior of 60 years ago, but to suggest the Dem. party of today is the same as it was in the 1950's, or that the Repub. party of the 1950's is the same as the Repub. party today, is either being a troll, intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Your choice.
Zaap
Diamond Member
- Jun 12, 2008
- 7,162
- 424
- 126
Oh really?
Did they now?
So Republicans "moving in hard" is defined by Democrats running southern candidates in order to win national elections with the south.
Republicans kicking your asses in multiple national landslides running California candidates is somehow racist, Dems blatantly courting the south with southern governors and fucking PEDIGREE offspring of the worse segragationists = not moving in hard, just you know, being liberals.
You (like most ignorant Demcorats that don't actually know shit about the party) are a fucking moron.
On the flip side you idiot, to suggest the south is the same south it was in the 50's is just plain stupid. And yet you do it all the time....
.. EXCEPT when you ignore 1976 and the 1990's and 2000 running southern governors and segregationist offspring in the top slot, while pointing fingers (blazingly stupidly) at Republicans.
Moron.
nickqt
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 7,667
- 8,021
- 136
You're hilarious. Extremely delusional and insecure, but hilarious.Oh really?
Did they now?
So Republicans "moving in hard" is defined by Democrats running southern candidates in order to win national elections with the south.
Republicans kicking your asses in multiple national landslides running California candidates is somehow racist, Dems blatantly courting the south with southern governors and fucking PEDIGREE offspring of the worse segragationists = not moving in hard, just you know, being liberals.
You (like most ignorant Demcorats that don't actually know shit about the party) are a fucking moron.
On the flip side you idiot, to suggest the south is the same south it was in the 50's is just plain stupid. And yet you do it all the time....
.. EXCEPT when you ignore 1976 and the 1990's and 2000 running southern governors and segregationist offspring in the top slot, while pointing fingers (blazingly stupidly) at Republicans.
Moron.
1968: Hubert Humphrey was a southerner? So, Minnesota is a southern state in delusional conservative reality. Interesting. Let's continue, this is fun!
1972: George McGovern was a southerner? So, South Dakota is a southern state now? Well, I guess that makes sense since it is South Dakota, but I don't usually consider that state Southern. Oh well, let's keep playing!
1976: Jimmy Carter...oh, look, we've got a southerner! G-d damn racist Democrats, how dare they run a southerner?!?!?!?!? RACISTS!!!!!!!!~!!!~!12eqwdf qdfsa sfsdfdse xcds
1980: And look! Those G-d damn racist Democrats had the f-ing audacity to run that racist Jimmy Carter again!!!!!!!
1984: And then Walter Mondale...wait, we've already established that Minnesota is a southern state in delusional conservative reality. So, good to go there!
1988: Next up, Michael Dukakis. So, Massachusetts is also a southern state in conservative delusional reality. Hmm, seems odd that they consider "Taxachusetts" a southern state, but I guess it's about par for the course.
1992: BOOM! Bill Clinton, from Arkansas. G-d damn racist Democrats at it again!!!!! How dare they run a southerner?!? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.
1996: There they go again. Arkansas. Re-running the same southerner. Does the Democrat party have no shame, running these racist southerners?
2000: AlGore(isfat). Tennessee. The Democratic party is just running southerners non-stop! F-ing racist scumbags.
2004: John Kerry...well, we've already established that Massachusetts is a southern state since Dukakis was from Massachusetts, and Democrats only run southerners to appeal to southern racists. Absolutely disgusting.
2008: Obama. Now Hawaii (Kenya) is a southern state? Well, it makes sense I guess since it is technically the southern-most state. I usually wouldn't consider Hawaii (Kenya) a southern state, but I guess you're right again.
2012. Obama again. Son of a bitch. G-d damn f-ing racists, running Obama yet again, from the most southern of states possible.
Recap:
Minnesota, Massachusetts, Hawaii, South Dakota
Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee
Yep, delusional conservative. How dare Democrats only run Southerners?!?
Goddamn you are stupid, it really makes sense why you are such a good little rightwinger. Shame someone wasted an education on you instead of a useful person, somewhere a Jiffylube is missing the best manager they would have ever seen.
Always nice to see a poorly informed Zaap rage flameout.
The irony of him trying to call other people stupid and misinformed is pretty great too.
The irony of him trying to call other people stupid and misinformed is pretty great too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter