What about it? Violent commie leftist got violent and attacked the National Guard with rocks, bricks, and molly's and FAFO...
Someone on CNN Doesn't know her history
- Thread starter Fasteddie24
- Start date
Hey tar tar dems and pubs have always mixed in relationships. Even if we accept your version they were your forbears also. But as a party the Reps have always been on the right side of civil rights that hasnt changed since the party was created. Even now its only the left that thinks blacks cant operate the internet or are too dumb to get a ID. There is a reason Malcolm X and MLK warned us about YT libs and they had them killed...
The POTUS that sent in the national guard was a Democrat as well. That was my point.
LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama to protect a civil rights march | March 20, 1965 | HISTORY
President Lyndon B. Johnson notifies Alabama’s Governor George Wallace that he will use federal authority to call up ...
So fighting among Dems and nothing to do with Reps. A conservative Dem sent them to enforce the law against a racist leftist Gov......The POTUS that sent in the national guard was a Democrat as well. That was my point.
LBJ sends federal troops to Alabama to protect a civil rights march | March 20, 1965 | HISTORY
President Lyndon B. Johnson notifies Alabama’s Governor George Wallace that he will use federal authority to call up ...www.history.com
I disagree that Wallace was a leftist and LBJ was a conservative Democrat. In fact I think the opposite. However you are correct it was a fight within the Democratic party at the time. The parties changed after the civil rights era. Southern conservatives like George Wallace used to be Democrats, but as national Democrats supported civil rights, many conservative Southern voters gradually moved to the Republican Party. At the same time, Black voters became strongly Democratic. That’s why the politics Wallace represented in the 1960s would be much more likely to be Republican today.
Last edited:
I read the article and it said that 175 people were injured. That could include cuts on your little finger or any number of very minor injuries. The article also said that 15 people were sent to the hospital but it didn't specify how seriously they were hurt. Undoubtedly, several of them did have serious injuries but you can be sent to the hospital for matters that can be taken care of in 30 minutes. So, there's still no evidence of widespread serious injuries caused on January 6th.
Why does it matter how many were seriously injured while defending the Capitol aginst a bloodthirsty mob enraged by the Big Lie?
I haven't seen any sympathy for them from you at all, only the traitors. Do you back the blue or not?
You are a dumb one who has chosen to either be ignorant of Jan6, or more likely pretending what happened did not.
No further contact.
You are a dumb one who has chosen to either be ignorant of Jan6, or more likely pretending what happened did not.
No further contact.
It was conservative Dems that crossed the isle to side with Reps to pass civil rights....
That's not really accurate. Civil rights was a bipartisan achievement, but it wasn't a victory of "conservatives" from both parties. The Senate's own history says conservative Southern Democrats led the opposition and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It also says liberal and moderate Republicans were deeply committed to civil rights, while many conservative Republicans opposed the bill because they believed it gave the federal government too much power. Some conservatives, most importantly Republican leader Everett Dirksen, did support it and were essential to passage, but giving conservatives as a group credit for the Civil Rights Act turns the history on its head.
it was old establishment Dem's not conservatives in the Dem party that opposed civil rights. Go look at the votes, Reps/Conservatives voted for it in a big way while Dems were split. Just like Conservatives fought to end slavery and founded the NAACP. While Dems opposed all of it and founded the KKK. You cant run from the history by trying to rewrite it with the fake big switch. Dems and Reps didnt just wake up one morning and decide ok Im tired of being the racist its your turn, and the Reps didnt say Im tired of being the champion of civil rights and freedom and want to be the bad guy now. LBJ did say he would have "N-word" voting Democrat for the next 200 years. You wont see any Conservative saying crap like that or showing Klan propaganda films in the WH like him either...That's not really accurate. Civil rights was a bipartisan achievement, but it wasn't a victory of "conservatives" from both parties. The Senate's own history says conservative Southern Democrats led the opposition and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It also says liberal and moderate Republicans were deeply committed to civil rights, while many conservative Republicans opposed the bill because they believed it gave the federal government too much power. Some conservatives, most importantly Republican leader Everett Dirksen, did support it and were essential to passage, but giving conservatives as a group credit for the Civil Rights Act turns the history on its head.
Last edited:
You're mixing up party labels with ideology. The Democrats who led the fight against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Southern conservative Democrats—the U.S. Senate's own history describes the Southern opposition as a conservative bloc. Liberal and moderate Republicans were among the strongest Republican supporters, and some conservative Republicans also supported the bill. Civil rights passed because of a bipartisan coalition, not because "conservatives" defeated liberals.
And nobody claims everyone switched parties overnight. The political realignment of the South happened gradually over decades. Strom Thurmond is an obvious example: he was a segregationist Democrat who opposed civil rights and switched to the Republican Party in 1964.
I'm going to leave it there. I made my original comment back on May 29, and I'm not interested in spending September arguing about it after you've resurrected the thread nearly four months later. The Hawkeye OT board is open again, so my summer vacation at Clemson is over. Thanks to everyone here for hosting us Hawkeyes this summer and giving us a place to hang out.
Conservatives have always been in the Republican party. It was conservatives that founded the party. The party still today is in favor of those things. You guys purged conservatives out of the party in the 90's and have been working to rid them out of the party since the civil rights era. We havent changed from that. Now you are purging Libs from the party...You're mixing up party labels with ideology. The Democrats who led the fight against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Southern conservative Democrats—the U.S. Senate's own history describes the Southern opposition as a conservative bloc. Liberal and moderate Republicans were among the strongest Republican supporters, and some conservative Republicans also supported the bill. Civil rights passed because of a bipartisan coalition, not because "conservatives" defeated liberals.
And nobody claims everyone switched parties overnight. The political realignment of the South happened gradually over decades. Strom Thurmond is an obvious example: he was a segregationist Democrat who opposed civil rights and switched to the Republican Party in 1964.
I'm going to leave it there. I made my original comment back on May 29, and I'm not interested in spending September arguing about it after you've resurrected the thread nearly four months later. The Hawkeye OT board is open again, so my summer vacation at Clemson is over. Thanks to everyone here for hosting us Hawkeyes this summer and giving us a place to hang out.
He switch parties after he switch his opinion on race. Strom had a way different view on race in his late life. Robert Byrd didnt change and was a Dem Senator until he died a decade ago. Dems praised the Klan leader at his wake including Clinton and Obama...You're mixing up party labels with ideology. The Democrats who led the fight against the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Southern conservative Democrats—the U.S. Senate's own history describes the Southern opposition as a conservative bloc. Liberal and moderate Republicans were among the strongest Republican supporters, and some conservative Republicans also supported the bill. Civil rights passed because of a bipartisan coalition, not because "conservatives" defeated liberals.
And nobody claims everyone switched parties overnight. The political realignment of the South happened gradually over decades. Strom Thurmond is an obvious example: he was a segregationist Democrat who opposed civil rights and switched to the Republican Party in 1964.
I'm going to leave it there. I made my original comment back on May 29, and I'm not interested in spending September arguing about it after you've resurrected the thread nearly four months later. The Hawkeye OT board is open again, so my summer vacation at Clemson is over. Thanks to everyone here for hosting us Hawkeyes this summer and giving us a place to hang out.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
What is Clemson's offense equipped to do vs. No. 4 Miami?
-
02
Tiger Illustrated Football
Wednesday Clemson Football & Recruiting Insider
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Wednesday Clemson Football Recruiting Nuggets
-
04
Tiger Illustrated Football Recruiting
Behind recent Clemson vs. Miami recruiting battles
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football
An object of intrigue within Clemson's defense moving forward