Debunking the liberals: Dems have always supported racism more than Republicans (politicians, biased)

[renault]

Of course the Democrats support racism. It's their bread and butter.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Harrier

All the racist Democrats in Congress save one remained Democrats until they died.

Meanwhile, how many non-racist Democrats switched to the (allegedly) non-racist Republican party?

And what about the fact that the entire South switched -- seemingly irrevocably -- from solid "blue" to solid "red" over a period of just 20 years? I suppose the massive and sudden switch in Southern voting patterns is evidence of a massive and sudden change of heart on racial issues. According to the historical revionism you cons are all pushing here, the South was so grateful to the Republican Party for forcing it to adopt integration and voting rights (with zero actual support from anyone in the South, of either party) that they immediately started voting for the GOP and have been doing so ever since.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Meanwhile, how many non-racist Democrats switched to the (allegedly) non-racist Republican party?

Harrier doesn't know - why don't you do a study and find out.

See, the issue with this mythical "party switching" thing is (a) there is absolutely no evidence that it ever occurred, (b) specific examples that it did not occur exist(see the link that Harrier provided above), and (c) even if it did occur - those alleged "switchers" would have died by now.

The only reason why liberals spew this nonsense about the Republican Party and "racism" is because it allows them to avoid talking about substantive policy issues which if they had to do so they Democrat Party would lose every election, because the left-wing ideology is bankrupt and a recipe for failure.

It is easier to scream "racist" over and over again and hope that people believe it.

That is why this thread exists - Democrats live in the past.

They wish that it was still the 1960's - and since it is not and we live in a post-racial society - they have to invent racism where it does not exist so as to have something against which to agitate.

Since being so focused on race to the exclusion of substantive policy issues is embarrassing for them given the racist history of the Democratic Party, they have to label the other side with the racist tag.

Democrats play divisive politics - it is all that they know how to do.

If you throw mud, then you should expect it to be thrown back.

The reason why the Democratic Party's racist history is being brought up so much is because of the unfounded attacks on the Republican Party vis a vis the same topic.

Those old racists from the 1950's and 1960's are gone.

A new generation who did not grow up in that era is the core of both parties.

Harrier doesn't believe that a large amount of racists exist in the Democratic Party today, so why would think that a large amount exist in the GOP today, other than for wanting to engage in dirty partisan smearing instead of having a rational debate on public policy?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Harrier

That is why this thread exists - Democrats live in the past.

Tell that to the OP -- who seems to think it's still 1964. And who is not a Democrat.

[ambient]

I can't believe a thread based on such a stupid premise is still running. Then again, given that it was started by city-data conservatives, I guess I can.

Liberals did not oppose civil rights; they were the ones who out-voted conservatives to get it passed into law.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by ambient

Liberals did not oppose civil rights...

Democrats did.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Tell that to the OP -- who seems to think it's still 1964. And who is not a Democrat.

Harrier already explained that this thread is a response to Democrats living in the past, and pretending that the "party switching" myth has any relevance to today.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Democrats did.

Some Democrats did. Other Democrats supported civil rights.

Similarly, some Republicans supported civil rights, while others opposed it.

If you're going to claim that what you call the "party switching myth" (which is very real, just look at a Presidential voting map from 1964 and compare it to one from 2012) is no longer relevant, then neither is the fact that some -- but by no means all -- Democrats opposed Civil Rights.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Some Democrats did. Other Democrats supported civil rights.

Similarly, some Republicans supported civil rights, while others opposed it.

Now you are getting the idea!

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Harrier

You can't attack the substance so you attack the messenger.

How typically liberal of you.

How Liberals Argue

There are certain people I don't listen to and a partisan hack like Ann Coulter is one of them.