Cultural existential threat: Marxism and Moral Relativism

[BeachGuy23 582]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So you didn't read my OP, as expected.  Good job, good effort.   

DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!

Everyone can read the thread boyo and see where I dismantled your pathetic argument that Biden had changed course in supporting Israel based on the college protests.  You cites as "data points" your opinion and that of other political "experts."

I'd want to put that curb stomping far in the past were I you too boyo.

Why do slimy salesmen think they're actually smart?  If they were they wouldn't be slimy salesmen.

LMFAO

 

[BeachGuy23 582]

5 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Ok.  I won't put words in your mouth, but will suggest that common sense and cultural norms can be seen in two radically opposed political parties.  You expressed opposition for the trans in your wife's locker room, yet you seem to support the political party which encourages the degeneration of moral norms that end up with d*&ks out in the locker room.  That, seemingly, is a conflict...or hypocrisy (or, just play acting on the bored so you can f**k with people).  Either way, the argument seems to dissipate into which political party best keeps the slope the most dry. 

I don't believe the vast majority of dems support this, just a very vocal minority.  I believe it will course correct to "normal" soon enough. 

Conservatives were against civil rights as well.  What makes sense and what is culturally appropriate will find its way. 

[BudBro 123]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm good, thanks.  Still alive, so I can't complain, but I still do.

Glad to see you back, hope you keep posting here.   

Good to hear.

I lurk.  Too many dem tards (or just one with 30 names) with nothing to say. 

Moral relativism on the geek bored, eh?  lol. 

[BeachGuy23 582]

2 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Good to hear.

I lurk.  Too many dem tards (or just one with 30 names) with nothing to say. 

Moral relativism on the geek bored, eh?  lol. 

Bro if this board has too many liberals you seek only echo chambers.  This board is 90% conservative and you complain about so few opposing view points?

I visit this board and other conservative boards to specifically give myself exposure to how your "side" thinks.

No echo chamber for me boyo. 

[BudBro 123]

2 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

I don't believe the vast majority of dems support this, just a very vocal minority.  I believe it will course correct to "normal" soon enough. 

Conservatives were against civil rights as well.  What makes sense and what is culturally appropriate will find its way. 

Conservatives pushed for the civil rights act in the 1950s.  Time to study some history.  Dems ran the longest filibuster in history against the civil rights act.  Dem leaders against included William Fulbright (Clinton mentor), Al Gore Sr. (vp and internet inventor's dad), and Robert Byrd (kkk member).  LBJ, as leader of the senate, voted against it before agreeing to it in 1964 to get blacks to vote democrat. 

[BeachGuy23 582]

Just now, BudBro said:

Conservatives pushed for the civil rights act in the 1950s.  Time to study some history.  Dems ran the longest filibuster in history against the civil rights act.  Dem leaders against included William Fulbright (Clinton mentor), Al Gore Sr. (vp and internet inventor's dad), and Robert Byrd (kkk member).  LBJ, as leader of the senate, voted against it before agreeing to it in 1964 to get blacks to vote democrat. 

Friend we all know what dixiecrats were.  The South turned from solid dem to R soley due to northern dems support for civil rights.

Strom Thurmond, an unabashed racist, won 5 southern states I believe.

To claim that conservatives were in favor of the civil rights act in the 60's is disingenuous and we all know it.

[Patented Phil 849]

17 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Enjoy turning the clock back 75 years boyo.  Liberals advance society while you Stone Age conservatives fear progress.

You’ve got me confused with someone else, BOYO.  I was a classical Liberal while you were still sucking on your mama’s teet.  This country went south when you and the other boyotards lurched to the Far Left with the identity politics nonsense.

[weepaws 2,510]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Jesus. I get where you're coming from but shockingly disagree with you.

IMO in your trans example is specious. I don't think any trans people GAF about being 100% accepted, they just want to be left alone and treated with basic human respect. I believe that calling by their preferred name or pronoun is exactly that. If someone has a problem with that, it is indeed THEIR problem, not the problem of the trans individual. Here's one that will surprise you: one could look at the trans individuals themselves as oppressors to an extent. While I am supportive of trans rights like the good little mindless lib you believe me to be, I do have concerns for those whose rights are being infringed upon. You focus on men in women's sports, but I'm with Tim and consider that to be such a ridiculously small problem that it doesn't register. A bigger problem is what I have personally experienced in the workplace: a transsexual woman (biological man) using the women's locker room. Being that I work somewhere awesome with awesome employees, it hasn't been a huge issue, but the fact is that I was in a position where I had to tell a couple dozen women that they essentially had to STFU and deal with the fact that this new employee was going to be using their locker room. And while it has worked out okay, the fact that I had to do that gave me pause. No such thing as black and white.

As for the Israel/Palestine situation, please. I can recognize multiple truths at the same time:

• Hamas is evil and should be wiped out.
• Not every Palestinian supports Hamas, especially the young children.
• Israel is perfectly justified in retaliating and me being okay with it doesn't make me an Islamaphobe.
• Netenyahu is a questionable leader with a scummy past that may be in the process of carrying out genocide, so maybe we oughtta look into that and make sure it doesn't happen just because "God's chosen people" are pissed off.
• I can support the Palestinians that are suffering and question Zionism without being antisemitic and also recognize that while I think their Muslim religion is garbage, they as humans are not. I disagree with the tenets of most religion, but who am I (and who are you) to tell someone their religious beliefs are immoral, wicked, or wrong? You're encroaching on @weepaws territory here.

 

 

That’s a lie, dont be a liar, now that’s another one of the many sins you will burn for.  I didn’t say anyone else’s beliefs or religion is wicked or wrong, I point out that God Through is Holy Word the Bible does.  Take it back sinner. 

[BeachGuy23 582]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

You’ve got me confused with someone else, BOYO.  I was a classical Liberal while you were still sucking on your mama’s teet.  This country went south when you and the other boyotards lurched to the Far Left with the identity politics nonsense.

Unless you're 75+ you're wrong about that boyo.

And identity politics represents a tiny % of actual liberals and the pendulum will swing back.  Don't buy into the conservative hate machine that blows everything out of proportion. 

[BudBro 123]

2 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Bro if this board has too many liberals you seek only echo chambers.  This board is 90% conservative and you complain about so few opposing view points?

I visit this board and other conservative boards to specifically give myself exposure to how your "side" thinks.

No echo chamber for me boyo. 

I said dem tards.  S**t must not be bad enough yet for the dems to finally figure out keynes was cosmically wrong.  But, misery is starting to affect their bank accounts, too.  I appreciate the glimpse you gave.

[BeachGuy23 582]

Just now, weepaws said:

That’s a lie, not be a liar, now that’s another one of the many sins you will burn for.  I didn’t say anyone else’s beliefs or religion is wicked or wrong, I point out that God Through is Holy Word the Bible does.  Take it back sinner. 

What kind of sense does it make for a loving god to let his children burn forever?

No sense.

[BeachGuy23 582]

Just now, BudBro said:

I said dem tards.  S**t must not be bad enough yet for the dems to finally figure out keynes was cosmically wrong.  But, misery is starting to affect their bank accounts, too.  I appreciate the glimpse you gave.

Not sure what this has to do with you seeking an echo chamber, but I do appreciate the reasonable discourse boyo. 

[Fnord 1,161]

50 minutes ago, BudBro said:

It's the "slippery slope" that is the threat, and which makes each move of the boundary line existential.  Carving out more and more rights for tiny minority populations is divergent from the framing of the country. 

I know you're another conservative on a board overrun by their idiocy, but you should post more. This place needs more guys like you, Jerry and Voltaire and less Whataboutadour, Eternal Cuck and Patented Philth.

To the point above though: conservatives have been the minority in this country for an awfully long time based on the volume of votes for candidates of specific parties. In fact, most of the country is run by conservatives despite this reality. It's interesting that you're concerned by carving out rights for minority populations. And yes, I understand that you said "tiny minority." In your view, how are we approaching the slippery slope as we contemplate this issue? How are we carving out "new rights" and what are they?

[Patented Phil 849]

4 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Friend we all know what dixiecrats were.  The South turned from solid dem to R soley due to northern dems support for civil rights.

Strom Thurmond, an unabashed racist, won 5 southern states I believe.

To claim that conservatives were in favor of the civil rights act in the 60's is disingenuous and we all know it.

Poor, dumb boyo… living in a world of alternative facts…

Let’s take the 1964 Civil Rights Act first…  The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party. It passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, as opposed to 69 percent of Democrats.

How about the 1968 Fair Housing Act?  It initially passed the House in a 327-93 vote, with 68 percent support from Democrats and 87 percent support from Republicans. It then went to the Senate, where it was amended and voted upon, passing in a 71-20 vote in which 42 Democrats (66 percent) and 29 Republicans (81 percent) voted in favor.

Fat, dumb, and stupid is now way to go through life boyo.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,692]

5 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I know you're another conservative on a board overrun by their idiocy, but you should post more. This place needs more guys like you, Jerry and Voltaire and less Whataboutadour, Eternal Cuck and Patented Philth.

To the point above though: conservatives have been the minority in this country for an awfully long time based on the volume of votes for candidates of specific parties. In fact, most of the country is run by conservatives despite this reality. It's interesting that you're concerned by carving out rights for minority populations. And yes, I understand that you said "tiny minority." In your view, how are we approaching the slippery slope as we contemplate this issue? How are we carving out "new rights" and what are they?

Yeah, what this board needs is more f'nretard and his boyosexual bros. 

[Fnord 1,161]

6 minutes ago, weepaws said:

That’s a lie, dont be a liar, now that’s another one of the many sins you will burn for.  I didn’t say anyone else’s beliefs or religion is wicked or wrong, I point out that God Through is Holy Word the Bible does.  Take it back sinner. 

You have said, despite being a "Christian" that Catholics, which are also Christians, are going to go to hell because it's not a real religion. I'm paraphrasing, but that was your point. You have been vocal about your sect of Christianity being the only "true" christianity. So you are ALL ABOUT judging other people's beliefs, and telling them they're going to hell. I stand by my statement.

And seriously, "take it back sinner?"  This isn't fuking Sunday school Shadrach.

[BeachGuy23 582]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

Poor, dumb boyo… living in a world of alternative facts…

Let’s take the 1964 Civil Rights Act first…  The House passed the bill after 70 days of public hearings and testimony in a 290-130 vote. The bill received 152 “yea” votes from Democrats, or 60 percent of their party, and 138 votes from Republicans, or 78 percent of their party. It passed the Senate with a 73-27 vote. About 82 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, as opposed to 69 percent of Democrats.

How about the 1968 Fair Housing Act?  It initially passed the House in a 327-93 vote, with 68 percent support from Democrats and 87 percent support from Republicans. It then went to the Senate, where it was amended and voted upon, passing in a 71-20 vote in which 42 Democrats (66 percent) and 29 Republicans (81 percent) voted in favor.

Fat, dumb, and stupid is now way to go through life boyo.

Racist Dixiecrats who were democrats in name only and switched to republicans over the impending years.

Do y'all like lie to yourselves on a regular basis?

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell (D-GA), launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.^[2

[Patented Phil 849]

2 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Racist Dixiecrats who were democrats in name only and switched to republicans over the impending years.

Do y'all like lie to yourselves on a regular basis?

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell (D-GA), launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.^[2

The Big Switch That Wasn’t: The Dixiecrats, Race and 1964

By Rick Chromey | May 24, 2023 | 2 

 

 

 

 

It’s known as “The Big Switch.”A historical moment when Southern Democrat politicians converted to Republicanism and refashioned the G.O.P. into a racist political party (according to their opponents).

In an heated Twitter exchange between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez (D-NY) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), this “big switch” was the grist of the Millennial Democrat’s argument.

The only problem? It’s not true.

But first a little historical context.

The general narrative of this “switch” is capsulized in a 2017 History.com article.[1] Once again, a Millennial writer documented how the Democratic Party–known for its historic racism–split in 1948 after Harry S. Truman (D-MO) first “introduced a pro-civil rights platform” into the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) and a faction of Southern Democrats, consequently, bolted from Democrats to create the “States Rights” (Dixiecrat) party. The author then stated how Dixiecrats eventually converted to Republicanism–along with Thurmond–in 1964. Later, Nixon’s “southern strategy” and Reagan’s conservatism moved the Democratic “blue” South to become a firm “red” Republican in the 1970s and 1980s.

Consequently, Democrats routinely finger contemporary Republicans as “racists,” pointing to occasional neo-Nazi politicians (David Duke, a one-term Louisiana state legislator), obscure racist organizations (Patriot Front) and Confederate flag-waving MAGA types. In fact, just wearing MAGA clothing is considered “racist” by many individuals on the left.

It’s a strong and divisive narrative…but what’s the TRUTH?

First of all, the “Dixiecrats,” under Strom Thurmond in 1948), did leave the Democratic Party…but not for racial reasons.

The Truman Administration–following sixteen years of Franklin D. Roosevelt–further desired to federalize and centralize government. The Southern Thurmond “Dixiecrats” believed in traditional “states’ rights” and segregation. The Northern and Western Democratic Party in the 1930s and 1940s was more “progressive” politically. President Roosevelt’s fascination with the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and fascist government programs in Europe guided many of his domestic policies.

Consequently, the 1948 Truman-Democratic platform reflected more centralized and socialist government, thus angering and distancing Southern libertarians. That’s what really split the Democratic Party in 1948. In fact, in a political platform that boasted 4,256 words only 106 (2.4%) were devoted to civil rights (for the black or anyone else).[2] Even more surprisingly was how the party of slavery, segregation, Ku Klux Klan and Confederate secession was quick to pat itself on the back in 1948. In their summary on civil rights the Democratic Party proudly claimed it alone was “responsible for the great civil rights gains” and committed to “continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.”

However, such 1940s political posturing was contradicted by a Jim Crow Democratic South that still lynched blacks, refused school, hotel, restaurant, transportation and restroom facilities to “coloreds” and rigged voting procedures to suppress the black ballot.Therefore, it’s hard to believe “great gains” were actually made by Democrats (as it was the GOP that continually battled for racial civil rights from its inception). The Democrat Harry Truman was allegedly an inactive participant in the Missouri KKK, and biographers often noted his latent racism against blacks, Jews, Chinese and Japanese throughout his life.[3] Meanwhile the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated a KKK member to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black), put Japanese-Americans into detention camps and refused to welcome black Olympians—including the famed Jesse Owens—to the White House.[4]

Nevertheless, the Dixiecrat exodus was more about progressive, fascist, socialism than segregation and black civil rights. In the end, despite predictions of a Thomas Dewey victory, the Dixiecrat exodus produced little gain. Truman won the 1948 presidency in a landslide electoral college vote while the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond mustered an inconsequential 2.4% of the popular vote.[5]

Second, the Dixiecrats did NOT convert to Republicanism in 1964 (after Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act) as many contemporary historians and journalists suggest.

In fact, most of these racist libertarians returned to the Democratic Party after 1948 and became a significant voting block against civil rights and desegregation throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. According to one historical analysis, of the 1500+ racist “Dixiecrats” only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic Party for the GOP (less than 1%). Furthermore, Thurmond didn’t switch parties until 16 years after Truman forced his hand to create his “Dixiecrat” party.

Third, Southern whites (the people, not the politicians) did vote more REPUBLICAN in post-1965 elections, but not for racialreasons.

Again, the Democratic Party was moving left,toward socialism, nonreligious/atheism and adopting liberal planks on abortion, women and gay rights. The Bible Belt South in the 1970s and 1980s became less racist as de-segregation and civil rights laws were enforced. Consequently, immigration to southern cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Charlotte) by northern and western GOP conservatives rearranged the voting demographic. Southerners are more conservative and that’s why dozens of Democrats switched parties. Did you know notable Republicans Trent Lott, Mike Pence, William Bennett and Rick Perry were all previously Democrat? It’s true. And race was not the reason they switched affiliations…it was due to liberal/socialist policies.

Finally, the Republican Party and its leaders have consistently denounced and resisted the “alt right” ultra-conservative racist organizations.

It’s why these racists formed their own political party in 2009 (The American Freedom Party). Republicans, historically, have always championed civil rights for the black and all ethnicities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed thanks to widespread Republican support (who had proposed, ironically similar legislation in the Eisenhower administration). All Southern Democrats (including those Dixiecrats) voted against it. Oh, and David Duke? He only identified as Republican when politically expedient. Otherwise, he’s been in the Democrat, Populist or Reformed camp.

Ultimately Strom Thurmond isn’t the best example, but rather Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).

Byrd spent 62 years in public office. He served for over half a century at the national level, as a Representative and, later, a powerful Senator. The senior senator died in office (2010) at the ripe age of 92. Hillary Clinton called Byrd a “friend and mentor.” Barack Obama noted how “the arc of his life bent toward justice.” The press gave Byrd a surprisingly, blessed pass and ignored his racism.

That’s because Robert Byrd proved a quintessential post-WW2 Democrat. Originally a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia (an affiliation he later disavowed), Byrd refused to fight in World War 2 because it meant serving alongside blacks. He routinely voted with other segregationists in the 1950s. As a senator, Byrd filibustered and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He abstained his vote for the 1965 Voting Act. He also voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice.

This same Robert Byrd then politically transformed from a known racist to a beloved mentor. How? Simple. He towed the party line…for nearly 57 years! It’s possible to argue Byrd didn’t lose his racism but rather, like most good politicians, shelved it. He enjoyed his power and position. It wasn’t the first time Byrd did what was necessary. In fact, the whole reason Byrd initially joined the KKK was for “political power.” To his credit, Byrd did leave the organization, but still it showed him to be a political opportunist. Once in national office, at least until 1967 (when being a segregationist went out of fashion), he retained his racist roots. Byrd told a reporter: “Don’t get that albatross [the KKK] around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.”[6]

Inhibit indeed.

It’s all politics. And it still is, for those who really listen close. It’s why we need to flip the script. We must tell the real story of what happened in 1948 and 1964.

The Republican Party didn’t change, but rather it was the Democratic Party’s transformation (becoming more progressively left) that split their party. The South was also fundamentally transformed by civil rights legislation led by Republicans, not Democrats, in Congress. We should also note that until Democratic “Great Society” welfare policies of the Johnson administration gave black voters an economic reason to vote “blue,” Black America was a Republican voting block.

Between 1865 and 1965, Black America backed Lincoln’s “Grand Old Party” (The G.O.P.). Notable Blacks like Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jackie Robinson were all Republicans.

So the “big switch” was neither big nor a switch.

It was the Democratic party in turmoil. It was a South being forced to end segregation and other civil rights abuses. It was the result of Republicans emigrating to Southern states post-1965 because it now reflected their more conservative values.

It was also about Southern politicians recognizing the writing on the wall…and their future in it.

This wasn’t their father’s (or grandfather’s) South anymore. It was a new day. And both Nixon and Reagan took advantage of it.

[BeachGuy23 582]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

The Big Switch That Wasn’t: The Dixiecrats, Race and 1964

By Rick Chromey | May 24, 2023 | 2 

 

 

 

 

It’s known as “The Big Switch.”A historical moment when Southern Democrat politicians converted to Republicanism and refashioned the G.O.P. into a racist political party (according to their opponents).

In an heated Twitter exchange between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Ortez (D-NY) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), this “big switch” was the grist of the Millennial Democrat’s argument.

The only problem? It’s not true.

But first a little historical context.

The general narrative of this “switch” is capsulized in a 2017 History.com article.[1] Once again, a Millennial writer documented how the Democratic Party–known for its historic racism–split in 1948 after Harry S. Truman (D-MO) first “introduced a pro-civil rights platform” into the Democratic Party. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) and a faction of Southern Democrats, consequently, bolted from Democrats to create the “States Rights” (Dixiecrat) party. The author then stated how Dixiecrats eventually converted to Republicanism–along with Thurmond–in 1964. Later, Nixon’s “southern strategy” and Reagan’s conservatism moved the Democratic “blue” South to become a firm “red” Republican in the 1970s and 1980s.

Consequently, Democrats routinely finger contemporary Republicans as “racists,” pointing to occasional neo-Nazi politicians (David Duke, a one-term Louisiana state legislator), obscure racist organizations (Patriot Front) and Confederate flag-waving MAGA types. In fact, just wearing MAGA clothing is considered “racist” by many individuals on the left.

It’s a strong and divisive narrative…but what’s the TRUTH?

First of all, the “Dixiecrats,” under Strom Thurmond in 1948), did leave the Democratic Party…but not for racial reasons.

The Truman Administration–following sixteen years of Franklin D. Roosevelt–further desired to federalize and centralize government. The Southern Thurmond “Dixiecrats” believed in traditional “states’ rights” and segregation. The Northern and Western Democratic Party in the 1930s and 1940s was more “progressive” politically. President Roosevelt’s fascination with the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and fascist government programs in Europe guided many of his domestic policies.

Consequently, the 1948 Truman-Democratic platform reflected more centralized and socialist government, thus angering and distancing Southern libertarians. That’s what really split the Democratic Party in 1948. In fact, in a political platform that boasted 4,256 words only 106 (2.4%) were devoted to civil rights (for the black or anyone else).[2] Even more surprisingly was how the party of slavery, segregation, Ku Klux Klan and Confederate secession was quick to pat itself on the back in 1948. In their summary on civil rights the Democratic Party proudly claimed it alone was “responsible for the great civil rights gains” and committed to “continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.”

However, such 1940s political posturing was contradicted by a Jim Crow Democratic South that still lynched blacks, refused school, hotel, restaurant, transportation and restroom facilities to “coloreds” and rigged voting procedures to suppress the black ballot.Therefore, it’s hard to believe “great gains” were actually made by Democrats (as it was the GOP that continually battled for racial civil rights from its inception). The Democrat Harry Truman was allegedly an inactive participant in the Missouri KKK, and biographers often noted his latent racism against blacks, Jews, Chinese and Japanese throughout his life.[3] Meanwhile the Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated a KKK member to the Supreme Court (Hugo Black), put Japanese-Americans into detention camps and refused to welcome black Olympians—including the famed Jesse Owens—to the White House.[4]

Nevertheless, the Dixiecrat exodus was more about progressive, fascist, socialism than segregation and black civil rights. In the end, despite predictions of a Thomas Dewey victory, the Dixiecrat exodus produced little gain. Truman won the 1948 presidency in a landslide electoral college vote while the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond mustered an inconsequential 2.4% of the popular vote.[5]

Second, the Dixiecrats did NOT convert to Republicanism in 1964 (after Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act) as many contemporary historians and journalists suggest.

In fact, most of these racist libertarians returned to the Democratic Party after 1948 and became a significant voting block against civil rights and desegregation throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. According to one historical analysis, of the 1500+ racist “Dixiecrats” only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic Party for the GOP (less than 1%). Furthermore, Thurmond didn’t switch parties until 16 years after Truman forced his hand to create his “Dixiecrat” party.

Third, Southern whites (the people, not the politicians) did vote more REPUBLICAN in post-1965 elections, but not for racialreasons.

Again, the Democratic Party was moving left,toward socialism, nonreligious/atheism and adopting liberal planks on abortion, women and gay rights. The Bible Belt South in the 1970s and 1980s became less racist as de-segregation and civil rights laws were enforced. Consequently, immigration to southern cities (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Charlotte) by northern and western GOP conservatives rearranged the voting demographic. Southerners are more conservative and that’s why dozens of Democrats switched parties. Did you know notable Republicans Trent Lott, Mike Pence, William Bennett and Rick Perry were all previously Democrat? It’s true. And race was not the reason they switched affiliations…it was due to liberal/socialist policies.

Finally, the Republican Party and its leaders have consistently denounced and resisted the “alt right” ultra-conservative racist organizations.

It’s why these racists formed their own political party in 2009 (The American Freedom Party). Republicans, historically, have always championed civil rights for the black and all ethnicities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed thanks to widespread Republican support (who had proposed, ironically similar legislation in the Eisenhower administration). All Southern Democrats (including those Dixiecrats) voted against it. Oh, and David Duke? He only identified as Republican when politically expedient. Otherwise, he’s been in the Democrat, Populist or Reformed camp.

Ultimately Strom Thurmond isn’t the best example, but rather Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).

Byrd spent 62 years in public office. He served for over half a century at the national level, as a Representative and, later, a powerful Senator. The senior senator died in office (2010) at the ripe age of 92. Hillary Clinton called Byrd a “friend and mentor.” Barack Obama noted how “the arc of his life bent toward justice.” The press gave Byrd a surprisingly, blessed pass and ignored his racism.

That’s because Robert Byrd proved a quintessential post-WW2 Democrat. Originally a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia (an affiliation he later disavowed), Byrd refused to fight in World War 2 because it meant serving alongside blacks. He routinely voted with other segregationists in the 1950s. As a senator, Byrd filibustered and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He abstained his vote for the 1965 Voting Act. He also voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice.

This same Robert Byrd then politically transformed from a known racist to a beloved mentor. How? Simple. He towed the party line…for nearly 57 years! It’s possible to argue Byrd didn’t lose his racism but rather, like most good politicians, shelved it. He enjoyed his power and position. It wasn’t the first time Byrd did what was necessary. In fact, the whole reason Byrd initially joined the KKK was for “political power.” To his credit, Byrd did leave the organization, but still it showed him to be a political opportunist. Once in national office, at least until 1967 (when being a segregationist went out of fashion), he retained his racist roots. Byrd told a reporter: “Don’t get that albatross [the KKK] around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena.”[6]

Inhibit indeed.

It’s all politics. And it still is, for those who really listen close. It’s why we need to flip the script. We must tell the real story of what happened in 1948 and 1964.

The Republican Party didn’t change, but rather it was the Democratic Party’s transformation (becoming more progressively left) that split their party. The South was also fundamentally transformed by civil rights legislation led by Republicans, not Democrats, in Congress. We should also note that until Democratic “Great Society” welfare policies of the Johnson administration gave black voters an economic reason to vote “blue,” Black America was a Republican voting block.

Between 1865 and 1965, Black America backed Lincoln’s “Grand Old Party” (The G.O.P.). Notable Blacks like Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jackie Robinson were all Republicans.

So the “big switch” was neither big nor a switch.

It was the Democratic party in turmoil. It was a South being forced to end segregation and other civil rights abuses. It was the result of Republicans emigrating to Southern states post-1965 because it now reflected their more conservative values.

It was also about Southern politicians recognizing the writing on the wall…and their future in it.

This wasn’t their father’s (or grandfather’s) South anymore. It was a new day. And both Nixon and Reagan took advantage of it.

Very interesting boyo.

Thanks. 

[weepaws 2,510]

15 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You have said, despite being a "Christian" that Catholics, which are also Christians, are going to go to hell because it's not a real religion. I'm paraphrasing, but that was your point. You have been vocal about your sect of Christianity being the only "true" christianity. So you are ALL ABOUT judging other people's beliefs, and telling them they're going to hell. I stand by my statement.

And seriously, "take it back sinner?"  This isn't fuking Sunday school Shadrach.

Exactly what God’s Holy Word the Bible says, if you live and die in sin, you cannot be with God, Jesus died to remove your sin, that you keep living in, you think living a life as a flag gives you some kind of pass, nope.  Stop living in sin, stop lying about me arse.  

 

[The Real timschochet 3,166]

10 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Very interesting boyo.

Thanks. 

It would be except this Rick Chromey guy is completely wrong. I read that post and marveled: how can you get every bit of history so badly wrong? Then I googled the dude. He’s a right wing religious nut. Besides being wrong about this, he’s wrong about Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and a host of other issues. Talk about revisionism. 

The Dixiecrats left in ‘48 because Truman desegregated the military. After Truman won they came crawling back. Then they left again after Robert Kennedy started desegregating the southern schools. This time they never looked back. They’ve been Republican ever since. That’s the actual history and it’s generally true. You can read about it in the books by our best historical scholars of the era like Taylor Branch or William Manchester or David Halberstam. But please don’t pay attention to some nutty guy writing on the internet; he’s totally off. 

[jerryskids 5,357]

52 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

DEFLECTION ALERT!!!!

Everyone can read the thread boyo and see where I dismantled your pathetic argument that Biden had changed course in supporting Israel based on the college protests.  You cites as "data points" your opinion and that of other political "experts."

I'd want to put that curb stomping far in the past were I you too boyo.

Why do slimy salesmen think they're actually smart?  If they were they wouldn't be slimy salesmen.

LMFAO

 

You are truly a blithering idiot.

You claimed this thread was based on trans issues.

I pointed out that in the OP, I specifically said that the problem is not these specific issues but the trend of increased moral relativism.

You deflected with some pablum about "data points" (another phrase I didn't use).

I tried to steer you back to your inability to read the OP and have an intelligent discussion.

You then accused me of deflecting above.

 

It is true, people are reading these exchanges and drawing conclusions.  It's not what you think, however.  I'm once again amazed by your utter and complete lack of self-awareness.  I think you honestly think you are winning something here.  I feel sorry for you.

 

 

[Fnord 1,161]

19 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Exactly what God’s Holy Word the Bible says, if you live and die in sin, you cannot be with God, Jesus died to remove your sin, that you keep living in, you think living a life as a flag gives you some kind of pass, nope.  Stop living in sin, stop lying about me arse.  

 

I was raised Catholic. Guess what? They read the Bible too. So do Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans. All going to hell according to judge, jury, and executioner weepaws. Humble yourself a bit, buddy. You aren't right about everything. No one is. I'm not lying about you or anything else.

[weepaws 2,510]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I was raised Catholic. Guess what? They read the Bible too. So do Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans. All going to hell according to judge, jury, and executioner weepaws. Humble yourself a bit, buddy. You aren't right about everything. No one is. I'm not lying about you or anything else.

Reading the Bible doesn’t save you, being baptized doesn’t save you, Passing along Bible verses doesn’t save.  

The wholeheartedly accepted of Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior does.  You can’t live sin and Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior at the same time.  Stop living in the sin of flag hood, and stop lying about me fool.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,180]

5 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

You realize that when the govt/taxes takes over healthcare then they are the ones who decide what/when you get treatment for things, right?  

They decide to approve you for things like x-rays, dialysis and chemo.  They truly decide if someone is actually worth the treatments available, someone is worth saving. 

Are you willing to know that "allocating funding" means letting someone's mother die? 

Yeah, when was the last time the government did anything that worked without it costing way more than what it was supposed to?  The last time the government got involved in the medical insurance industry (the ACA), costs went up. 

[MLCKAA 420]

10 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Anyway, I've typed enough for now.  I look forward to @BeachGuy23responding with a grammatically challenged one-liner, but hopefully this can generate some discussion among intelligent folks.   

Thanks for posting.

Judeo Christian morality was the foundation of the US for a long time and some would say it still is or that it still should be.  Judeo Christian beliefs reject moral relativism.  Most of my life, I accepted that.  I have come to believe that some things are relative and I can’t accept a calcified enforcement of JC morality across the board.

In John Jesus is quoted as saying that if he had not come and talked to Man about God, and shown them miracles, then their lives would not be sinful.  But because he came and spoke to them and showed them miracles, they have no excuse for not believing and therefore are guilty of sin.

Alas, that was 2,000 years ago.  I do not mean to be flippant when I say that you and I have only a 2k year old text for reference.  He did not talk to me or show me miracles.  I was not shown that same grace.  And this is where my problem with strict morality begins.

If God created us with this FREE WILL that my fellow Christians love to mention, then he would foresee that we (alive today) would need the same grace as what was shown to people in biblical times.  He would foresee that we would question, doubt and adapt morality.  I believe we were created and, because of that, I must believe that he foresaw the evolution of morality 2k years post-gospel and has chosen not to prevent it.

 

[Maximum Overkill 781]

11 hours ago, BeachGuy23 said:

What leads you to believe I'm fine with it?  I literally said trans don't belong near women in naked or potential naked situations. 

Why, they're perfect for your platform. You voted for Joe Biden, now he's been proven a Pedo, by his own Daughter. 

 

[5-Points 2,773]

12 hours ago, Fnord said:

Jesus. I get where you're coming from but shockingly disagree with you.

IMO in your trans example is specious. I don't think any trans people GAF about being 100% accepted, they just want to be left alone and treated with basic human respect. I believe that calling by their preferred name or pronoun is exactly that. If someone has a problem with that, it is indeed THEIR problem, not the problem of the trans individual. 

 

You have the right to pretend to be whatever you want. You do not have the right to demand that I suspend my disbelief. If somebody has a problem with me not believing they are what they claim to be, that is indeed THEIR problem. 

[BeachGuy23 582]

12 hours ago, jerryskids said:

 

 

I said data, not facts.  A link showing the opinion of political analysts is a piece of data; it supports my argument.  You bring nothing to support yours except an inability to read the English language.

 

 

Hey Jerry, still think that opinions are data points to help you draw your moron conclusion that the reason Biden is getting irritated with Israel is because of the college protests?

Opinions are data now right Mr. Feelz?

LMFAO

[Hardcore troubadour 12,918]

Let’s keep in mind that Beachball 23 has yet to get his CPA, despite his expressed desire to do so, and after he acknowledged it would help him in his career. Sounds like a lazy Fock. Or not up to the task. 

[BeachGuy23 582]

8 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Let’s keep in mind that Beachball 23 has yet to get his CPA, despite his expressed desire to do so, and after he acknowledged it would help him in his career. Sounds like a lazy Fock. Or not up to the task. 

2nd step from the top of the finance chain boyo.  Being sick a couple of years ago derailed any plans to rise to the top.

Unlike you who stayed on the bottom step, I rose like 10 steps to one removed from the top.

Me >>>>>>>>>>> You.

[Ron_Artest 767]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Let’s keep in mind that Beachball 23 has yet to get his CPA, despite his expressed desire to do so, and after he acknowledged it would help him in his career. Sounds like a lazy Fock. Or not up to the task. 

Says the guy who couldn't make Sargeant

[Hardcore troubadour 12,918]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

Says the guy who couldn't make Sargeant

Coming from a guy that can’t spell Sergeant 

[BeachGuy23 582]

9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Coming from a guy that can’t spell Sergeant 

And we all know the best and brightest stear far clear of such a low IQ job like being a cop.

You couldn't rise to the middle of that group.

LMFAO

[BeachGuy23 582]

12 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Says the guy who couldn't make Sargeant

I almost felt bad for delivering such an epic beatdown to Jerry being he's been sick and all that.

But dude claims to be an EE and then says that opinions are "data points."

LMFAO

[Ron_Artest 767]

27 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

I almost felt bad for delivering such an epic beatdown to Jerry being he's been sick and all that.

But dude claims to be an EE and then says that opinions are "data points."

LMFAO

It's truly pathetic the way the warped cultist mind works.

[TimHauck 1,873]

12 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

This country went south when you and the other boyotards lurched to the Far Left with the identity politics nonsense.

When did this happen exactly?

[RLLD 3,539]

Modern Marxism is even worse than the past versions that ultimately led to millions of deaths.....   these kids are so focking stupid to be led by this excrement.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,918]

Weak men and mouthy women. That’s the threat. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,692]

 The Boyosexual Power Twink Twins posting in unison, one right after the other like clockwork!