In response to tvoter's comment:

I'm signing the petition for Texas to secede too! LOLOL

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Ya but, how long ago did that party exist? Could times have changed????

Spielberg needs you to promote his film.

[/QUOTE]


Yea, I keep forgetting about that big dem myth that the parties switched roles.

Lets see, Bob Byrd led the filibuster against civil rights, and died a democrat.

Uh huh.  Need a bridge?  Its really pretty.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

No, actually - Strom Thurmond led the fillibuster in 57 (speaking for more than 24 hours straight), and died a Republican, switching parties in 1964.  Richard Russell led the filibuster in 64.  

Byrd changed his heart and mind, and renounced his racist views before he died - Thurmond changed his party and never did renounce his earlier beliefs, despite having fathered a black daughter.

You really don't buy that the Dems lost the deep south because the civil rights act?  The only states Goldwater won in 64 were his home state (AZ), plus MS, AL, GA, LA & SC.  None of which voted Repbulican in 1960.

 

 

Well, this is all fallout from the dirty campaign run by the Obama administration and their purposeful,mission to divide the country to win an election. You get what you ask for. Don't look for republicans to agree to much. Let's go over the cliff. Go ahead and blame the republicans. Most of us will  survive. The layabouts will break the back of the federal tat. Washington will evaporate. Who cares! 

2004: Feeling they’ve lost any say in how the nation is run, liberals are turning to an unfamiliar philosophy: States’ rights.

Guess who was the secessionist leader :

In the days after the election, fantasies of blue-state secession ricocheted around the Internet. Liberals indulged themselves in maps showing Canada gathering the blue states into its social democratic embrace, leaving the red states to form their own “Jesusland.” They passed around the scathing rant from the Web site F***uck the South, which lacerated the chauvinism of the “heartland” and pointed out that the coasts, far from destroying marriage, actually have lower divorce rates than the interior.

These sentiments were so pronounced that they migrated into the mainstream. Speaking on “The McLaughlin Group” the weekend after George W. Bush’s victory, panelist Lawrence O’Donnell, a former Democratic Senate staffer, noted that blue states subsidize the red ones with their tax dollars, and said, “The big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government.”

A shocked Tony Blankley asked him, “Are you calling for civil war?” To which O’Donnell replied, “You can secede without firing a shot.”  [WAJ note -- transcript here, still looking for video]

And not just Big Larry, Blue states buzz over secession (emphasis mine)

One popular map circulating on the Internet shows the 19 blue states won by Sen. John Kerry — Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and the Northeastern states — conjoined with Canada to form the “United States of Canada.” The 31 red states carried by Mr. Bush are depicted as a separate nation dubbed “Jesusland.”

The idea isn’t just a joke; one top Democrat says, “The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government.”

“Some would say, ‘Oh, poor Alabama. It’s cut off from the wealth infusion that it gets from New York and California,’” said Lawrence O’Donnell, a veteran Democratic insider and now senior political analyst at MSNBC. “But the more this political condition goes on at the presidential level of the red and blue states, the more you’re testing the inclination of the blue states to say, ‘So what?’”

The emergence of a solidly Republican South prompted longtime Democratic activist Bob Beckel to advocate Southern independence the morning after Election Day.

In response to slomag's comment:

Yea, I keep forgetting about that big dem myth that the parties switched roles.

Lets see, Bob Byrd led the filibuster against civil rights, and died a democrat.

Uh huh.  Need a bridge?  Its really pretty.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

No, actually - Strom Thurmond led the fillibuster in 57 (speaking for more than 24 hours straight), and died a Republican, switching parties in 1964.  Richard Russell led the filibuster in 64.  

Byrd changed his heart and mind, and renounced his racist views before he died - Thurmond changed his party and never did renounce his earlier beliefs, despite having fathered a black daughter.

You really don't buy that the Dems lost the deep south because the civil rights act?  The only states Goldwater won in 64 were his home state (AZ), plus MS, AL, GA, LA & SC.  None of which voted Repbulican in 1960.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

Russell was the ONE republican of the 18 filibustering Senators, led by Byrd and Al Gore Sr.

In the end, 6 republicans voted against it, with 21 dems.

Even LBJ credited Everett Dirksen and the GOP for getting it done, with honorable mention to Humphrey, and ONLY Humphrey.  He was some PO'd and his party

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

The bottom line is the dems have a done a great job convincing minorities that they are more tolerant simply because they want to give more hand outs instead of hand ups and they point our the fring groups of racist around the GOP and portray them as the base!

They ignore the groups within their party that are racist and worse.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

There you go again

In response to slomag's comment:

 

No no no. Don't you get it? It's so obvious. Byrd was a racist. Therefore, no Republicans were racist, no racist Democrats became Republicans, there was absolutely no voter shift, and the south is a huge collection of blue states.

 

Because byrd was a racist.

 

Or so Zingmaster tells us....  

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In your tiny world

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Those Republicans are dead and gone.  Byrd is dead too.  The relevancy of your ideas are for historic purposes only.  Stop living in the past.  There are no Lincolns in the G.O.P. now.  No real civil rights leaders either.  But a good number are in opposition.  Probably a majority.  But keep living in the past.  The present is too ugly for you to bear apparently.

Gotta have something to replace the tea party.  Simple as that.  Needs to be.

Another very bumpable thread.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Seriously - what is your explanation for states that had not voted Republican in 90 years to suddenly become the reddest of the red after the civil rights act of 64?  

The last Republican president these states voted for before Goldwater was Ulysses S Grant.

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

In your tiny world

Yeah. My tiny world. As opposed to the single-person universe you reach back to every single time the issue of race comes up, in any context: Byrd.

As Rueben points out, it's nice to be up on history but you aren't accomplishing much flogging those people for points every time current issues arise. They're all dead (or almost all dead).

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.

Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".

It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party most of them remained Democrats.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house nigger".

It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion. (sic) It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

Yeah. My tiny world. As opposed to the single-person universe you reach back to every single time the issue of race comes up, in any context: Byrd.

------------------------------

"Will the red states bring back slavery?"

Wasn't me.

Now go feel zinged again, as you're the only one, and seem to like it.

In response to tvoter's comment:

It will reach a million signatures overall by tomorrow most likely and to say "mostly conferate stataes" just shows your own bigotted attitude towards the south.

That some of the states were once (everyone who was there then is dead now) part of the confederacy idicates something racial is just assinine and race baiting!

[/QUOTE]

I said quite clearly "ex-" and "former" confederate states.  Which they most certainly are.

Given that the Civil War was our last true brush with state secession makes the label salient, if somewhat loaded.

Make no mistake.  That history is still a source of pride for money anti-govt types.

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

By today's GOP standards, Lincoln was a flaming socialist liberal moonbat and the Civil Rights Act was a terrible mistake.

To deny that is to deny what's right in front of your nose.

 

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

...to bump this post and thread, because both deserve more attention.

+1

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Any guesses as to where Todd and Sarah Palin stand on this?

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Really?? So, people who like to keep the money they earned and are upset over the FACT that govt is the most wasteful entity but, yet people want to give them MORE money are now "proud of slavery"?

Yea...but....b...

 

Byrd, Byrd. Byrd, Byrd, Byrd's the word I said a Byrd, Byrd,.... 

 

ad infini-vomitum

In response to Firewind's comment:

And Dick Armey?

[Bump]

In response to tvoter's comment:

 

You notice before 1964, the Dems you reference are all law-makers.  After 1964, they're isolated incidents.  A Harry Belafonte does not trump a Strom Thurmond, or even a 2012 Jan Brewer.  

Most lawmakers didn't switch parties - that's true, but those that did switched from the Dems to the GOP - none switched the other way around.

Ulysses S. Grant - that's the last Republican president GA, SC, MS, AL & LA voted for before Barry Goldwater.  Ulyesses S f'ing Grant.  You don't have to be racist or condone racism to acknowledge they vote with you.  And if you can't do that, in the face of Ulysses S F'ing Grant ... how can anybody take you seriously about anything?