5
5
0
Democrats still living their lies. Laura Parks
America’s Real Civil Rights History
Posted from theacru.org
Republicans
Democrats
Human Rights
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
I have been pointing out everything mentioned in this article for over 30 years now. In response to my attempts to educate my fellow Americans about the true history of the United States, I have been labeled by Dems as racist, whits supremacist, Nazi, klansman, and every other vile pejorative that could be thrown my way.
News flash, folks; I'm still out here speaking out and people (white AND black) are finally beginning to wake up and see the reality of the bullshit & lies we've had shoved down our throats by the socialist, elitist Dem party since the 1960's. It's about time, America!
Just my opinion...
News flash, folks; I'm still out here speaking out and people (white AND black) are finally beginning to wake up and see the reality of the bullshit & lies we've had shoved down our throats by the socialist, elitist Dem party since the 1960's. It's about time, America!
Just my opinion...
(2)
(0)
SN (Join to see)
Feel free to share this: https://www.blackandblondemedia.com/2009/01/14/democrat-race-lie/ Thanks to Democrats, black people are the ONLY group in America whose history is a work in progress.
The Democrat Race Lie - Black & Blonde Media
This whopper deserves all the attention it can get. Again, it shows the ignorance and contempt of the electorate liberals depend on. The following* is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button…. This is the kind of revisionism spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other …
(0)
(0)
SSG Ronald Bloodworth
Can't thank you enough, SN Parks. Many of the events laid out, I knew of; but not most of them. You just more than doubled my arsenal of actual facts I use to refute the lies and vitriol of these socialist charlatans who call themselves the party equality and "social justice". Most educated people easily see through their lies and altered events used to hyjack GOP accomplishments in our own struggle on behalf of ALL Americans. I salute you, sir...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why does history in this article seem to stop in 1965? Nothing else has happened since 1965 regarding civil rights? No laws were passed, no debates took place, no positions were taken by either party?
Also those republicans that supported civil rights, were Rockefeller Republicans, who fell out of favor in the republican party and started to disappear after Barry Goldwater beat Rockefeller for the 1964 Presidential bid. Goldwater brought in what you see today in the republican party which is overly conservative.
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs and a social safety net; they sought to run these programs more efficiently than the Democrats. Rockefeller Republicans also saw themselves as champions of "good government", contrasting themselves to the often corrupt machine politics of the Democratic Party (particularly in large cities). They were strong supporters of big business and Wall Street. They opposed socialism and government ownership. They supported some regulation of business and many New Deal–style social programs. A critical element was their support for labor unions. The building trades, especially, appreciated the heavy spending on infrastructure. In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets, and were not averse to raising taxes in order to achieve them; Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush once called for Congress to "raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary".[8]
In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy, they tended to be Hamiltonian, espousing internationalist and realist policies, supporting the United Nations, and promoting American business interests abroad.
It's to bad Rockefeller republicans are not around anymore.
Also those republicans that supported civil rights, were Rockefeller Republicans, who fell out of favor in the republican party and started to disappear after Barry Goldwater beat Rockefeller for the 1964 Presidential bid. Goldwater brought in what you see today in the republican party which is overly conservative.
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs and a social safety net; they sought to run these programs more efficiently than the Democrats. Rockefeller Republicans also saw themselves as champions of "good government", contrasting themselves to the often corrupt machine politics of the Democratic Party (particularly in large cities). They were strong supporters of big business and Wall Street. They opposed socialism and government ownership. They supported some regulation of business and many New Deal–style social programs. A critical element was their support for labor unions. The building trades, especially, appreciated the heavy spending on infrastructure. In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets, and were not averse to raising taxes in order to achieve them; Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush once called for Congress to "raise the required revenues by approving whatever levels of taxation may be necessary".[8]
In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy, they tended to be Hamiltonian, espousing internationalist and realist policies, supporting the United Nations, and promoting American business interests abroad.
It's to bad Rockefeller republicans are not around anymore.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Nothing but a straw man. The Democrats were not always the party that championed civil rights, and I've never heard a democrat say anything different.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Why did you post the Factcheck link? All it says is that what Bob said is correct. The Southern Democrats were completely against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes, A Democrat President was in charge when it happened....that's a non-issue. And the real "straw man".
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It was a turning point where Democrats began supporting Civil rights and conservative Southern Democrats began shifting over to the Republican party.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Does that change the fact that more Republicans voted for the bill than against? And Wikipedia is a site not worthy of quoting from. We all know that the entries can be altered. I'm not debating the content, just your choice of the site.
Now utilizing the information that you provided: The votes, for and against the Act.
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As you can see by the above clip, your "even more unanimous" Southern Republican bloc consisted of 1 person. Pretty easy to be unanimous with only one person. So "literally not one Southern Republican" is literally ONE Southern Republican.
Since you appear to be a liberal, I'm going to include a link to a CNN page. You can't really argue that they aren't a reputable site because, well, it's CNN, and they will tell you what is they say is real regardless of the truth.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html
Now utilizing the information that you provided: The votes, for and against the Act.
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
As you can see by the above clip, your "even more unanimous" Southern Republican bloc consisted of 1 person. Pretty easy to be unanimous with only one person. So "literally not one Southern Republican" is literally ONE Southern Republican.
Since you appear to be a liberal, I'm going to include a link to a CNN page. You can't really argue that they aren't a reputable site because, well, it's CNN, and they will tell you what is they say is real regardless of the truth.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html
What you might not know about the 1964 Civil Rights Act - CNNPolitics
The 1964 Civil Rights Act revolutionized America, and here are the things you may not know about the bill.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Interesting that you cite information from Wikimedia as fact and then choose to attack the medium from which you obtained it. The 1964 Civil Rights was a turning point which started a realignment that eventually resulted in the Civil Rights crowd belonging to the Democratic party and the Conservative crowd in the Republican party. Both parties continue to evolve, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if 20 years from now the parties ideological position had revered itself again.
The point though is that for the last 50 years the Democrats have been fighting for civil rights, while conservatives have been resisting change. The link above shows that black Americans recognized the shift and supported Democrats... even though they had not always been the party of civil rights.
The point though is that for the last 50 years the Democrats have been fighting for civil rights, while conservatives have been resisting change. The link above shows that black Americans recognized the shift and supported Democrats... even though they had not always been the party of civil rights.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google