Mr. Barbour was born in 1947 and will turn 63 in October. A bit of revisionist history?

Damn it. Why does MSNBC keep putting this little boy in Maddows slot. Has she been ill? When is she coming back to host the show?

More Liberty said:
Damn it. Why does MSNBC keep putting this little boy in Maddows slot. Has she been ill? When is she coming back to host the show?

Time for some new material.

Research in todays’s techno-rich environment.

paulmdoro said:
Time for some new material.

I know…sometimes I just can’t resist. Sorry.

One doesn’t even need research, rather, they need only a general knowledge of civil rights history. Medgar Evers assassinated in his Jackson, MS driveway in 1963. Three civil rights workers lynched in Mississippi in 1964. I guess to Barbour that is “relatively tolerant.”

More Liberty said:
I know…sometimes I just can’t resist. Sorry.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan either. Just for the record.

OMG, Mr. Barbour sent his kids to private schools. You mean just like Pres Obama is doing today? And Biden and Kennedy and Gore and innumerable white leftists have done and continue to do? Pathetic.

Azarkhan said:
OMG, Mr. Barbour sent his kids to private schools. You mean just like Pres Obama is doing today? And Biden and Kennedy and Gore and innumerable white leftists have done and continue to do? Pathetic.

Not as pathetic as lying about our nation’s history.

He did not say he say black churches burning in Arkansas like Clinton did. There were no burned black churches in Arkansas. He did not say anything that these clowns can dispute, they were his experiences not theirs.

paulm, so he was born in 1947? That means he was 13 in 1960. When was the civil rights movement happening? The 60′s DUH. How old were you?

Barbour did not say he went to a intergrated high school. Listen to it again.
Ole Miss was intergrated. Now we have to count how many blacks were there at the time?
So what did he say that was not true?
Maddow’s conclusions were just her liberal nonsense.
You checked and you lied.

gordonbloyershow said:
He did not say he say black churches burning in Arkansas like Clinton did. There were no burned black churches in Arkansas. He did not say anything that these clowns can dispute, they were his experiences not theirs.

paulm, so he was born in 1947? That means he was 13 in 1960. When was the civil rights movement happening? The 60’s DUH. How old were you?

Barbour did not say he went to a intergrated high school. Listen to it again.
Ole Miss was intergrated. Now we have to count how many blacks were there at the time?
So what did he say that was not true?
Maddow’s conclusions were just her liberal nonsense.
You checked and you lied.

Reading comprehension is hard, obviously.

But Rachel, during the early sixties most of the politicians opposing civil rights were Democrats.

Paulm, stupidity is easy for you, obviously.
You can not say one thing Barbour said was not true.

Maddow and Robinson are calling him a liar and then claiming his experiences are a lie. Sorry that does not meet the laugh test.

YOU were not there. As I said before, how old are you?

I went to a high school that had 3 black students. Does that mean that school was not intergrated? How dumb are you?

Many white people in the South would not send their kids to a school with one black student.

writer said:
But Rachel, during the early sixties most of the politicians opposing civil rights were Democrats.

Well that was beginning to change then. Goldwater, for example, was against Johnson’s Civil Rights Act and got 87% of the vote in Mississippi.

gordonbloyershow said:
Paulm, stupidity is easy for you, obviously.
t.

Way to behave like a mature adult Gordon. You’re how old? 60? Pathetic. You should be embarrassed.

writer said:
But Rachel, during the early sixties most of the politicians opposing civil rights were Democrats.

And most of those Democrats became Republicans. Do you think Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond joined the GOP because they were3 such big fans of Abraham Lincoln? If you do, I got tickets to one of those Sean Hannity “freedom concerts” for you.

gordonbloyershow said:
Paulm, stupidity is easy for you, obviously.
You can not say one thing Barbour said was not true.

Maddow and Robinson are calling him a liar and then claiming his experiences are a lie. Sorry that does not meet the laugh test.

YOU were not there. As I said before, how old are you?

I went to a high school that had 3 black students. Does that mean that school was not intergrated? How dumb are you?

Many white people in the South would not send their kids to a school with one black student.

If you went to school in an area where almost zero black people lived (like Montana), that’s one thing. Mississippi was and still is almost 50% black.

As much fun as it might be to bust Beckerhead’s balls for his lie about holding Washington’s speech in his hands, it doesn’t compare to Haley the Hutt’s racist revisionism.

He didn’t say he went to an integrated high school. He didn’t say his high school, or the schools in Mississippi were integrated, he said there were integrated schools (he first integrated schools were in 56 and 57). He did say his college was integrated.

If there were 2 African Americans at his college, then he wasn’t wrong when he said he went to an integrated college, was he?

“never thought twice about it.” Perhaps he meant he didn’t care that blacks were joining white schools – he didn’t think about it in the sense that he didn’t obsess about blacks joining his schools, like the Democrats who fought for segregation and were anti-integration.

My mom went to an integrated high school in West Virginia, and she doesn’t recall any controversy or anger or violence. After I saw the movie We Are Marshall, I asked both my parents (who went to that school during that time) about the violence from whites towards blacks and neither of them remember anything like was protrayed in the film. My dad used to go to all the football games, and they said there may have been a few people yelling something, but no where near the violence and anger as portrayed in the film. My mom said they were all polite kids, she led the prayer group at school, they sang in choir, etc. She also said they never experienced the drugs of the late 60-70′s either. Very Leave it to beaver, is how she remembers her childhood school days.

I suppose it’s possible that two different kids, growing up in two different households, neighborhoods and towns and states could have completely different experiences. One could be knee deep in racial protests, marches, etc. and the other in a completely different environment. So, perhaps it is possible (and most likely) that Barbour has a totally different childhood than Robinson, both having experienced completely different lives. So, for Eugene to say Haley’s telling a revisionist claptrap, and making up his own history…he doesn’t really know unless he lived Haley’s life, does he?

And they are saying Haley doesn’t have the right to recall his childhood how he remembers it? Loooooney. I didn’t hear Haley say racial conflict didn’t happen, he said he didn’t experience it (paraphrase). There’s a difference, no?

And since it was the Democrats who were filibustering the Civil Rights Acts, setting up the Jim Crow laws, fighting integration and had sitting Klan members, I suppose it’s possible that if Haley were from a Republican family, they weren’t racist like Southern Democrats…. Perhaps they were even *gasp!* pro-integration.

But that’s just a guess, since I don’t know him.

sarainitaly said:
I suppose it’s possible that if Haley were from a Republican family, they weren’t racist like Southern Democrats…. Perhaps they were even *gasp!* pro-integration.

But that’s just a guess, since I don’t know him.

Here’s some history then:

His father and grandfather, he notes, were both Democrats — “Eastland Democrats,” to be precise.

That would be James Eastland, an ardent segregationist senator who represented Mississippi from 1943 to 1978. Dubbed “the voice of the white South,” Eastland declared that Brown v. Board of Education “destroyed” the Constitution and that segregation was the “correct, self-evident truth” and “the law of nature.” When three civil rights workers in Mississippi disappeared in the Freedom Summer of ’64 (they were murdered, it turned out), Eastland privately told LBJ that no one had really disappeared — that it was all “a publicity stunt.”

Jelperman said:
If you went to school in an area where almost zero black people lived (like Montana), that’s one thing. Mississippi was and still is almost 50% black.

that doesn’t mean Haley’s neighborhood was.

Paul, you’re not ripping off Salon.com are you?

Ok, so his dad and grandpa were Dems, and he joined the Republican party. Perhaps then he wasn’t keen on the Dems and their Southern racism.

in 1962 the first African American, James Meredith, was admitted to Ole Miss, Haley was 15 at the time. Another admitted in ’64. So, by the time Haley went to Ole Miss, it was integrated.

The quote by Pritchard Morris is disingenuous because Barbour didn’t say he went to an integrated high school. (she said anyone who graduated from high school before 1970)

Ole Miss: Haley Barbour (Class of ’73)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/olemiss010799.htm

By the time he graduated, I suppose it’s possible that things had changed a bit.

And Maddow’s comments about the private school are pathetic.

sarainitaly said:

in 1962 the first African American, James Meredith, was admitted to Ole Miss, Haley was 15 at the time. Another admitted in ‘64. So, by the time Haley went to Ole Miss, it was integrated.

And also in ’64 in Mississippi three civil rights workers were lynched. So obviously some problems still existed.

Oops. Typed too fast.

More Liberty said:
Damn it. Why does MSNBC keep putting this little boy in Maddows slot. Has she been ill? When is she coming back to host the show?

Oh, the bigot strikes again…

Azarkhan said:
OMG, Mr. Barbour sent his kids to private schools. You mean just like Pres Obama is doing today? And Biden and Kennedy and Gore and innumerable white leftists have done and continue to do? Pathetic.

Sigh…. Another irrelevant comment. Try to stay on board of the topic.

gordonbloyershow said:
He did not say he say black churches burning in Arkansas like Clinton did. There were no burned black churches in Arkansas. He did not say anything that these clowns can dispute, they were his experiences not theirs. paulm, so he was born in 1947? That means he was 13 in 1960. When was the civil rights movement happening? The 60’s DUH. How old were you? Barbour did not say he went to a intergrated high school. Listen to it again.Ole Miss was intergrated. Now we have to count how many blacks were there at the time?So what did he say that was not true?Maddow’s conclusions were just her liberal nonsense.You checked and you lied.

Ol’ Miss attempted integration in 1962. It was met by riots and gunshots, leaving people dead and wounded.

writer said:
But Rachel, during the early sixties most of the politicians opposing civil rights were Democrats.

When the Civil Rights bill was passed, most of the Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican side of the aisle. And it was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, who forced through the Civil Rights bills.

sarainitaly said:
He didn’t say he went to an integrated high school. He didn’t say his high school, or the schools in Mississippi were integrated, he said there were integrated schools (he first integrated schools were in 56 and 57). He did say his college was integrated. If there were 2 African Americans at his college, then he wasn’t wrong when he said he went to an integrated college, was he? “never thought twice about it.” Perhaps he meant he didn’t care that blacks were joining white schools – he didn’t think about it in the sense that he didn’t obsess about blacks joining his schools, like the Democrats who fought for segregation and were anti-integration. My mom went to an integrated high school in West Virginia, and she doesn’t recall any controversy or anger or violence. After I saw the movie We Are Marshall, I asked both my parents (who went to that school during that time) about the violence from whites towards blacks and neither of them remember anything like was protrayed in the film. My dad used to go to all the football games, and they said there may have been a few people yelling something, but no where near the violence and anger as portrayed in the film. My mom said they were all polite kids, she led the prayer group at school, they sang in choir, etc. She also said they never experienced the drugs of the late 60-70’s either. Very Leave it to beaver, is how she remembers her childhood school days. I suppose it’s possible that two different kids, growing up in two different households, neighborhoods and towns and states could have completely different experiences. One could be knee deep in racial protests, marches, etc. and the other in a completely different environment. So, perhaps it is possible (and most likely) that Barbour has a totally different childhood than Robinson, both having experienced completely different lives. So, for Eugene to say Haley’s telling a revisionist claptrap, and making up his own history…he doesn’t really know unless he lived Haley’s life, does he? And they are saying Haley doesn’t have the right to recall his childhood how he remembers it? Loooooney. I didn’t hear Haley say racial conflict didn’t happen, he said he didn’t experience it (paraphrase). There’s a difference, no? And since it was the Democrats who were filibustering the Civil Rights Acts, setting up the Jim Crow laws, fighting integration and had sitting Klan members, I suppose it’s possible that if Haley were from a Republican family, they weren’t racist like Southern Democrats…. Perhaps they were even *gasp!* pro-integration. But that’s just a guess, since I don’t know him.

Wow, you are living in some kind of fantasy world. In the South of the 50s and 60s, and indeed into the 70s, there were murders, lynchings, beatings, church burnings, segregated buildings, and violence. Remember, Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968, so there was still much hatred in the South. And once, again, the Democrats who were against Civil Rights, moved to the Republican side of the aisle, and have been comfortable there ever since.

alamo2 said:
When the Civil Rights bill was passed, most of the Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican side of the aisle. And it was Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, who forced through the Civil Rights bills.

Hence Barry Goldwater’s Southern success in 1964.He won only 6 states: his home state of Arizona as well as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi (by a margin of 87.1% to 12.9%), and South Carolina.

Sara is right in everything she said and well said.
Paulm is just another phony lib that nitpiks to try to create lies where there are none. He won’t even say how old he is. He wasn’t there, I was. He is just reading the left-wing propaganda redesigned the save democrats from their REAL history.

redesigned to save the democrats from their REAL history.

gordonbloyershow said:
Sara is right in everything she said and well said.
Paulm is just another phony lib that nitpiks to try to create lies where there are none. He won’t even say how old he is. He wasn’t there, I was. He is just reading the left-wing propaganda redesigned the save democrats from their REAL history.

Gordon, you are a lot of things, but a historian is not one of them. Unless we’re talking revisionist history. Then you’re a pro. I’m sure you were on the front lines, fighting to integrate Ole Miss!

gordonbloyershow said:
Sara is right in everything she said and well said.Paulm is just another phony lib that nitpiks to try to create lies where there are none. He won’t even say how old he is. He wasn’t there, I was. He is just reading the left-wing propaganda redesigned the save democrats from their REAL history.

Gordo, you were just humorous for awhile, but now you are plain nuts. I really doubt you were there, and if you were, based on your many comments on all these blogs, you were probably wearing a white sheet with your other friends. Paulm is not a liar. Liar is just a convenient word you use when you lose your temper (which is often), and have nothing substantive to say. The real history of the Democrats? Bigots and racists left the party in the South, and moved to the Republican side, where they have stayed for all these years.

alamo2 said:
In the South of the 50s and 60s, and indeed into the 70s, there were murders, lynchings, beatings, church burnings, segregated buildings, and violence.

Did I say otherwise? I believe I said it is possible that two different kids, growing up in two different areas could have totally different life experiences, ie Haley and Eugene or my parents and Eugene. My parents didn’t see it. Haley said he didn’t see it. My parents aren’t lying.

alamo2 said:
Ol’ Miss attempted integration in 1962. It was met by riots and gunshots, leaving people dead and wounded.

Yea, from Democrats.

alamo2 said:
Sigh…. Another irrelevant comment. Try to stay on board of the topic.

It is on topic. Maddow made it an issue, others are pointing out how dumb her comments were.

alamo2 said:
Oh, the bigot strikes again…

How about people stop saying that about Maddow when others stop saying that about Ann Coulter? (see thread about Laura and Ann)

paulmdoro said:
And also in ‘64 in Mississippi three civil rights workers were lynched. So obviously some problems still existed.

Never said otherwise. Problems still exist. But that doesn’t make Barbour a liar, as Maddow and Eugene seem to claim.

gordonbloyershow said:
Sara is right in everything she said and well said.

Thanks Gordon. :O)

Oh, yea. Another segment of “fill in the blank” republican/conservative is racist. Yawn.

Barbour is a liar sara. Plain and simple. Like the famous quote says, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. He is saying that in “his time,” the ’60s, things had changed and everyone just accepted integration peacefully and happily. That is completely false. The man is a liar.

I guess MSNBC got the talking points from Rham — Barbour is gonna run, so start the politics of personal destruction now. He is a very popular Governor, and we MSNBC, can’t allow that to continue. Or perhaps she got her talking points from journolist, or it’s replacement.

Bottom line: MSNBC attacks republicans …. nothing new about that at all. The racist card has been overplayed.

Yawn.

Did someone call Barbour a racist?

paulmdoro said:
Did someone call Barbour a racist?

Jelperman did.

sarainitaly said:
Jelperman did.

Liar, yes. Racist, no.

paul, Goldwater questioned the constitutionality of the civil rights act because he feared it would lead to racial quotas. Then LBJ and the Dems orchestrated the most successful smear job in history. (Don’t vote for Goldwater. We might end up in Vietnam!) LBJ reportedly laughed “We’ll have those nig…. voting for us from now on.” It took Everett Dirksen, a Republican, to break the Democrats filibuster to get the civil rights bill through. All facts the left conveniently ‘overlooks’.

writer said:
paul, Goldwater questioned the constitutionality of the civil rights act because he feared it would lead to racial quotas. Then LBJ and the Dems orchestrated the most successful smear job in history. (Don’t vote for Goldwater. We might end up in Vietnam!) LBJ reportedly laughed “We’ll have those nig…. voting for us from now on.” It took Everett Dirksen, a Republican, to break the Democrats filibuster to get the civil rights bill through. All facts the left conveniently ‘overlooks’.

I’m not overlooking anything. The above doesn’t mean Barbour isn’t lying. And Goldwater was an extremist who terrified his own party, for good reasons.

Is that why Goldwater got the nomination? Because the Republicans were ‘terrified’ of him?

writer said:
Is that why Goldwater got the nomination? Because the Republicans were ‘terrified’ of him?

He got the nomination thanks to a divided GOP (Rockefeller representing the moderate wing). It’s why he got crushed in the general election. He terrified all but the extremist wing of the party. I thought this was common knowledge? It’s not a huge secret. Do some reading.

paulmdoro said:
“Did someone call Barbour a racist?”

Come on. Eugeny called him a bigot. Maddow doesn’t have to directly say it. All the imagery and wording is there. Don’t play dumb. That’s Tommy Christopher’s job. “you hate black people” “what?” “I didn’t call you a racist, i just said you hate black people”.

lonestar77 said:
paulmdoro said:
“Did someone call Barbour a racist?”

Come on. Eugeny called him a bigot. Maddow doesn’t have to directly say it. All the imagery and wording is there. Don’t play dumb. That’s Tommy Christopher’s job. “you hate black people” “what?” “I didn’t call you a racist, i just said you hate black people”.

OK then.

I’ll admit that’s possible, paul. After all, the extremist Dems pushed McGovern through in ’72. But at the ’68 Dem convention, those weren’t right wingers protesting in the streets. LBJ was a proven liar, and his smear campaign against Goldwater remains one of the most successful marketing jobs in history.

writer said:
I’ll admit that’s possible, paul. After all, the extremist Dems pushed McGovern through in ‘72. But at the ‘68 Dem convention, those weren’t right wingers protesting in the streets. LBJ was a proven liar, and his smear campaign against Goldwater remains one of the most successful marketing jobs in history.

You are all over the place.

I’ll type slower, paul. You were saying that it’s possible for an extremist to still make it through his party’s nomination process. (Goldwater) I agreed, saying the Dems also did it. (McGovern) But since even the left ended up hating LBJ, doesn’t that call into question at least some of the things he was saying about Goldwater?

writer said:
I’ll type slower, paul. You were saying that it’s possible for an extremist to still make it through his party’s nomination process. (Goldwater) I agreed, saying the Dems also did it. (McGovern) But since even the left ended up hating LBJ, doesn’t that call into question at least some of the things he was saying about Goldwater?

Oh I understood it writer. It’s not complex.

So it wasn’t all over the place? It’s like the world has been lifted from my shoulders.

sarainitaly said:
that doesn’t mean Haley’s neighborhood was.

And why do you think Barbour’s neighborhood was almost 100% white in a state with such a large percentage of blacks? It’s called segregation, and like everyone else in the South back then, Haley Barbour was neck deep in it. I call BULLSHIT on anyone who spent their formative years in Mississippi and claims he or she didn’t notice Jim Crow or the murder of Medgar Evers, or the numerous other acts of racist terror that went on back then. It would be like someone who was a teenager or young adult in New York in 2001 claiming ignorance about the 9/11 attacks. Or someone from Dallas in the early 60s saying they didn’t notice the Kennedy assassination.

Or like listening to a racist pastor for twenty years and saying you never heard any racist remarks.

writer said:
Or like listening to a racist pastor for twenty years and saying you never heard any racist remarks.

Cause you know what Wright said every single time Obama was there?

No more than Obama knows, evidently.

writer said:
No more than Obama knows, evidently.

Or is it possible that Obama is, gasp, telling the truth? Imagine that.

Yep. And if a guy attended Klan meetings for twenty years, then claimed he had no idea of their racial views, I’d believe that too.

writer said:
Yep. And if a guy attended Klan meetings for twenty years, then claimed he had no idea of their racial views, I’d believe that too.

Must be challenging to have such a narrow mind capable of nothing but the most simplistic, black-and-white thoughts.

paul, I was agreeing. It’s totally believable.

sarainitaly said:
alamo2 said:
Ol’ Miss attempted integration in 1962. It was met by riots and gunshots, leaving people dead and wounded.
Yea, from Democrats.

Certainly not!!!! This was a bipartisan level of hatred, from a culture that did not want to see blacks get any kind of equality. You are very mistaken.

TfT said:
Bottom line: MSNBC attacks republicans …. nothing new about that at all. The racist card has been overplayed.
Yawn.

Bottom line: Fox News attacks Democrats…. nothing new about that all. The racist card (by right wingers) has been overplayed. Yawn.

paulmdoro said:
He got the nomination thanks to a divided GOP (Rockefeller representing the moderate wing). It’s why he got crushed in the general election. He terrified all but the extremist wing of the party. I thought this was common knowledge? It’s not a huge secret. Do some reading.

Paul, this hits the nail on the head. It is saddening when you get two thumbs down when you try to give them a little history lesson. What you said is absolutely true.

Jelperman said:
And why do you think Barbour’s neighborhood was almost 100% white in a state with such a large percentage of blacks? It’s called segregation, and like everyone else in the South back then, Haley Barbour was neck deep in it. I call BULLSHIT on anyone who spent their formative years in Mississippi and claims he or she didn’t notice Jim Crow or the murder of Medgar Evers, or the numerous other acts of racist terror that went on back then. It would be like someone who was a teenager or young adult in New York in 2001 claiming ignorance about the 9/11 attacks. Or someone from Dallas in the early 60s saying they didn’t notice the Kennedy assassination.

If you read anything of the history of the Civil Rights movement, you will find that Jelperman is correct in his comments. No one who lived in Mississippi (or Alabama, etc.) back in the 50s and 60s can say they never saw mistreatment of African Americans. It was part of their legal system.

alamo2 said:
Paul, this hits the nail on the head. It is saddening when you get two thumbs down when you try to give them a little history lesson. What you said is absolutely true.

Eh I don’t even bother looking at the thumbs up and thumbs down. Not when you consider some of the posters here.

Y’all are correct in that Barbour didn’t say he went to an integrated high school, because he couldn’t. He pretended that “his generation” went to integrated schools and left it to the imaginations of his Lee Atwater fans to try and defend his comments. Darlings, when the state of Mississippi didn’t integrate high schools until 1970, his generation, but only the much, much younger part, went to integrated schools.
Nice responses to the dog whistling, though. I’m glad to see y’all heard it. Arf, arf.

So, if something is going on around you for, say, twenty years, and you claim not to know about it, you’re lying. Got it.

If anyone is interested in other donations made by media or media figures, check out this website.
http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/

writer said:
So, if something is going on around you for, say, twenty years, and you claim not to know about it, you’re lying. Got it.

Obviously you don’t.

Jelp, Alamo and Paul:

Excellent commentary. The problem is the team sports mentality that infests the political discourse today. Partisans leap to defend the indefensible because somebody on “their team” is the one being criticized.

–Cobra

Well, paul, I guess Obama is just much more believable than Barbour.

Cobra said:
Jelp, Alamo and Paul:

Excellent commentary. The problem is the team sports mentality that infests the political discourse today. Partisans leap to defend the indefensible because somebody on “their team” is the one being criticized.

–Cobra

Thanks. Sad that so many were so quick to leap to Barbour’s defense, history and facts be damned.

I guess I’m just not getting it, paul. Barbour says he didn’t notice what was going on around him, and he’s lying. Obama says he didn’t notice, and it’s the truth.

writer said:
I guess I’m just not getting it, paul. Barbour says he didn’t notice what was going on around him, and he’s lying. Obama says he didn’t notice, and it’s the truth.

You aren’t getting it. Barbour said things had changed in the ’60s and everyone just accepted integration. That is not true. If he had stuck with something along the lines of “on my street everyone lived peacefully and happily,” it’d be a different story.

So, how does what Barbour said change Obama saying he didn’t notice anything?

writer said:
So, how does what Barbour said change Obama saying he didn’t notice anything?

Barbour changed history. He changed facts. He said things about the ’60s that are factually incorrect. Obama saying he didn’t hear hateful speech from Wright is not the same as changing civil rights history.

Make sense?

So Barbour’s lie was just bigger.

writer said:
So Barbour’s lie was just bigger.

If you assume Obama is lying when he says that he didn’t hear Wright say hateful things, and if it’s that important to you that they be compared and rated.

Twenty years listening to a guy like Wright? Yeah, I’ll assume.

writer said:
Twenty years listening to a guy like Wright? Yeah, I’ll assume.

Key word: assume. As in, you really don’t know. You sure are judgmental though.

writer said:
I guess I’m just not getting it, paul. Barbour says he didn’t notice what was going on around him, and he’s lying. Obama says he didn’t notice, and it’s the truth.

Who did Wright murder? Which churches did he firebomb? Who did he sic dogs on? Who did he have beaten? Who did he turn the fire hoses on? The worst that can be said of Wright is that he said something mildly racist AFTER Obama left his church. Now I realize that for Tea Klux Klanners like you, the “Uppity Angry Negro” is the most terrifying thing you can imagine, but that kind of moronic prejudice is YOUR cross to bear.

Jelp, never said Wright was a murderer. Just said he’s a racist, Obama listened to him for twenty years, and claimed he didn’t know he was a racist. Far lefties like you wail hysterically about white racism, but when a black guy is racist you bend into pretzels to deny he’s racist. (BTW, are you a black Muslim? You seem very racist against whites.)

alamo2 said:
I really doubt you were there, and if you were, based on your many comments on all these blogs, you were probably wearing a white sheet with your other friends.

Alamo, is that necessary or, as you like to say, “relevant”. That kind of comment won’t get you many thumbs up.

paulm said……………………Gordon, you are a lot of things, but a historian is not one of them. Unless we’re talking revisionist history. Then you’re a pro. I’m sure you were on the front lines, fighting to integrate Ole Miss!

That was a good answer to a question no one asked. Notice he never said how old he is. He is a lying lib hiding behind a phony name. I was watching history being re-written daily on the left-wing news networks and in the left-wing newspapers. They were revising the history of the democrat party daily. They ignored the democrat party history and tried to make them heroes.

alamo, you need to find a hobby.

Blower: living proof that age and wisdom are not always synonymous.

Now paul. You’d consider it unfair if a conservative had said that.

Depends on the truth. The Blower is a useless partisan hack who’d die of shock if an original thought entered his brain.

The revisionist historians are at it again. The Democratic Party until the 1950′s was really two parties, northern liberals and southern racist conservatives, the latter were really holdovers from FDR’s New deal of the 1930′s which did benefit the south . When it became clear after WW II that the problem of segregation had to be dealt with there was a movement of the racist southern Democrats to the Republican Party who, of course, welcomed them with open arms. Hailey Barbour is typical of these rascals. The party of Lincoln became today’s Republican Party of confusion backed by the most backward corporations and the good white southerners who couldn’t accept blacks as equal. It does appear as if the Republican Party is imploding and it is hardly a sure thing that they will pick up more than just a few seats in November.

gany, LOL, what are you smoking? If must be powerful stuff.

paulm, why are you afraid to tell us your age? Of course you could tell us anything since you hide behind a phony name. You must be ashamed of something? Do you need a night light? BOOOOOOOO! Did I scare you?

On Nov. 3rd gany will say that the democrats only lost a few seats. Just 40 to 60 thats just a few. LOL.

ganymede said:
The revisionist historians are at it again. The Democratic Party until the 1950’s was really two parties, northern liberals and southern racist conservatives, the latter were really holdovers from FDR’s New deal of the 1930’s which did benefit the south . When it became clear after WW II that the problem of segregation had to be dealt with there was a movement of the racist southern Democrats to the Republican Party who, of course, welcomed them with open arms. Hailey Barbour is typical of these rascals. The party of Lincoln became today’s Republican Party of confusion backed by the most backward corporations and the good white southerners who couldn’t accept blacks as equal. It does appear as if the Republican Party is imploding and it is hardly a sure thing that they will pick up more than just a few seats in November.

Nice history lesson. Unfortunately, a great number of people do not have any interest in real history, wanting instead to make believe that African Americans did not suffer under the Southern white. What went on in the South during the first half of the 20th century, into the 60s and even the 70s was dispicable, and I do not understand people trying to gloss over it.

Hey Maddow, here are some stories you might cover tonight.

Democrats running from Obama……………….

President Obama heads to Milwaukee onMonday, where he’ll mark Labor Day at a statewide union event with other local Democratic candidates — except for one. Sen. Russ Feingold, who is facing a tougher-than-expected re-election campaign, is too busy to meet up with Obama this weekend.

Most Democrats have come to understand that they can’t run on ObamaCare, but few have the temerity of Ron Wyden. The Oregon Senator is the first to break with the policy underpinnings of the bill he voted for.
Last week Mr. Wyden sent a letter to Oregon health authority director Bruce Goldberg, encouraging the state to seek a waiver from certain ObamaCare rules so it can “come up with innovative solutions that the Federal government has never had the flexibility or will to implement.”

For openers, nobody is disputing that the ’60s in the South was a tough era for blacks. But it is utterly asinine to declare one party was for civil rights, and the other opposed. There were members of both parties working pro and con on the issue. It was Dwight Eisenhower, for example, who pushed integration successfully. He had to battle the Democratic governor of Arkansas to get the school in Little Rock integrated. Gov. Orval Faubus (D) was enough of a segregationist that he used the National Guard to keep black students from attending the high school where Eisenhower had to finally resort to using troops to escort the students to class. Again, just one example.

writer said:
Jelp, never said Wright was a murderer. Just said he’s a racist, Obama listened to him for twenty years, and claimed he didn’t know he was a racist. Far lefties like you wail hysterically about white racism, but when a black guy is racist you bend into pretzels to deny he’s racist. (BTW, are you a black Muslim? You seem very racist against whites.)

What evidence do you have for Wright’s racism when Obama was a member of his church?

MartiniShark said:
For openers, nobody is disputing that the ’60s in the South was a tough era for blacks. But it is utterly asinine to declare one party was for civil rights, and the other opposed. There were members of both parties working pro and con on the issue. It was Dwight Eisenhower, for example, who pushed integration successfully. He had to battle the Democratic governor of Arkansas to get the school in Little Rock integrated. Gov. Orval Faubus (D) was enough of a segregationist that he used the National Guard to keep black students from attending the high school where Eisenhower had to finally resort to using troops to escort the students to class. Again, just one example.

Well, here’s another example of the problem with reading history sometimes….you have to read more of it to completely understand what was happening.
Take your account for instance. On face value, the facts in the timeline are correct, but there’s more to the story.
Orval Faubus:
“Arkansas seemed an unlikely place for a confrontation over civil rights. Its largest newspapers were generally supportive of desegregation, and several Arkansas cities had already integrated their public schools. The public library and bus system were desegregated, earning Little Rock a reputation as a progressive town. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus owed his re-election in 1956 to black voters.

Ironically, Faubus, responding to polls that showed 85 percent of the state’s residents opposed school integration, tried to block desegregation by directing the Arkansas National Guard to keep the nine teenagers from enrolling in the all-white Central High. He said that “blood would run in the streets” if the Central High School was integrated.”

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=361

So was Faubus REALLY “enough of a segregationist”, or just another politician trying to keep his job by responding to polling data?

Eisenhower:
“Nevertheless, the president was confident that city and state officials would obey desegregation orders. “I can’t imagine any set of circumstances that would ever induce me to send federal troops…to enforce the orders of a federal court, because I believe that the common sense of American will never require it,” he told reporters in July 1957. “
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=360

“Eisenhower’s greatest failure as President was his handling of civil rights. Eisenhower did not like dealing with racial issues, but he could not avoid such matters after the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Eisenhower disliked the Court’s ruling, and he refused to endorse it. Although the President usually avoided comment on court decisions, his silence encouraged resistance to school desegregation. In many parts of the South, white citizens’ councils organized to prevent compliance with the Court’s ruling. While some of these groups relied on political action, others used intimidation and violence.”

http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/eisenhower/essays/biography/4

And from his own diary…
“9) Dwight D. Eisenhower, diary entry (24th July, 1953)

I told him that while I was not going to give in advance my attitude toward a supreme court opinion that I had not even seen and so could not know in what terms it would be couched, that my convictions would not be formed by political expediency. He is well aware of my belief that improvement in race relations is one of those things that will be healthy and sound only if it starts locally. I do not believe that prejudices, even palpably unjustified prejudices, will succumb to compulsion. Consequently, I believe that federal law imposed upon our states in such a way as to bring about a conflict of the police powers of the states and of the nation, would set back the cause of progress in race relations for a long, long time.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAeisenhower.htm

Martini, so you can see, the deeper one reads history, the more complex it becomes, and the more difficult it is to make racism or civil rights a “party affiliation” pidgeonhole.

writer said:
Jelp, never said Wright was a murderer. Just said he’s a racist, Obama listened to him for twenty years, and claimed he didn’t know he was a racist. Far lefties like you wail hysterically about white racism, but when a black guy is racist you bend into pretzels to deny he’s racist. (BTW, are you a black Muslim? You seem very racist against whites.)

I’ve been challenging you for damn near a YEAR on Reverend Wright. Please produce Wright’s “racist” quotes. Please show me the quote where he declares one race as superior or inferior to another?
I’m calling you out, writer.

–Cobra

This is so typical of Rachel Maddow. With a big election looming, she goes on the attack against..yes, Haley Barbour? What a brave woman, to take such brave stances. Who will she confront next? Maybe a city alderman in Fargo? A barrister in Tallahassee? The head zookeeper in Spokane?

Isn’t it obvious to viewers that Maddow would rather score points on the most trivial matters instead of cover the news? Who could possible find this show — built on trivialities night after night — at all informative or interesting? No wonder she has lost most of her audience.

Cobra said:
Well, here’s another example of the problem with reading history sometimes….you have to read more of it to completely understand what was happening. . . Martini, so you can see, the deeper one reads history, the more complex it becomes, and the more difficult it is to make racism or civil rights a “party affiliation” pidgeonhole.

In other words, we are in complete agreement.

Cobra said:
I’ve been challenging you for damn near a YEAR on Reverend Wright. Please produce Wright’s “racist” quotes. Please show me the quote where he declares one race as superior or inferior to another?
I’m calling you out, writer.

Excellent analysis, Cobra! And a nice rejoinder to those who always bring up Wright.

i really am infuriated by revisionist history. Even so called “moderate Republicans” like George Bush Sr. opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. I was young at the time but I remember this very will. In congress there was a young Republican congressman from New York City, John V. Lindsay, who later became a two term mayor, was a strong supporter of civil rights but the fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party was lost at the 1963 presidential convention when Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Senator who opposed the civil rights act, beat N.Y. Governor and future vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Pennsylvania Governor William W. Scranton for the nomination in 1964. After that time there were fewer and fewer liberal Republicans. Senator Jacob Javits of New York was another good one.

I watched the whole 1964 Republican Convention on T.V. I also watched Richard Nixon’s 1968 Law and Order southern strategy aimed at southern whites, who were angry at the Democrat support of civil rights, win the presidency. I saw President Johnson, on T.V. live calling for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saying in his address to the nation “we shall overcome”. I remember being only eleven years old but crying because I understood what it meant to be called nigger repeatedly by fellow classmates in school in New York City. I remember my 3rd grade teacher telling me to put my hand down because “I was not ready” to participate in class elections in the Fall of 1961 because I was one of the “bus children”.

I know this is a rant but conservatives make me angry. They lie and get away with it because most people are uninterested in history, even recent history. I was very happy to see the Rachel Madow show point out Barbour’s incredible dishonesty. There was a similar expose in Slate Magazine yesterday.

This is the final vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
In the Senate, Repub 82% for; Dems 69% for;
House vote on the final Senate version for passage of the bill…
Repub 80% for; Dems 63% for.
Any more questions? Nuff said!

I enjoyed your commentary, armwood. It reminded me of some good Republicans back in the 1960s. I was from New York, and when I volunteered for Vietnam, and couldn’t get sent there (because I was stationed in Germany), I wrote to Jacob Javitts. Within a couple of weeks, I got my orders, plus a letter from the Senator. Unfortunately, in today’s Republican Party, there would be no place for a Javitts or a Rockefeller. The GOP has become very narrow in its focus, and that is indeed sad. They don’t like moderates anymore.

remoriah said:
This is the final vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:In the Senate, Repub 82% for; Dems 69% for;House vote on the final Senate version for passage of the bill…Repub 80% for; Dems 63% for.Any more questions? Nuff said!

You still miss the point, sir. The racist Congressmen in the Democratic Party left it shortly after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and they were welcomed into the Republican Party. That is one of the reasons Barry Goldwater became such a big name in the GOP. Nothing deserves a “nuff said.” There is always much more to the story….

One more thing; Al Gore, Sr and 2 other Dems (Byrd + one other) fillibustered the civil rights act. While Goldwater voted against it because he feared it would create a police state; he voted against the Gore amendment to defy the civil rights legislation by not funding it. 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voted with Gore for this racist amendment. Rachel has a way of avoiding the facts to make Dems look good. The history is available everywhere. There is no reason to take the word of any talking head that lies to make points for the parties. This is the reason that so many black voters voted Repub when they were finally allowed to vote..after all it was the party of Lincoln, a Republican. That’s old news but it is part of our history.

More Liberty said:
Damn it. Why does MSNBC keep putting this little boy in Maddows slot. Has she been ill? When is she coming back to host the show?

Wow! You can’t refute any of the facts she presented so you resort to childish name calling.

remoriah said:
One more thing; Al Gore, Sr and 2 other Dems (Byrd + one other) fillibustered the civil rights act. While Goldwater voted against it because he feared it would create a police state; he voted against the Gore amendment to defy the civil rights legislation by not funding it. 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voted with Gore for this racist amendment. Rachel has a way of avoiding the facts to make Dems look good. The history is available everywhere. There is no reason to take the word of any talking head that lies to make points for the parties. This is the reason that so many black voters voted Repub when they were finally allowed to vote..after all it was the party of Lincoln, a Republican. That’s old news but it is part of our history.

How many times do you have to be told that the racist congressmen, after the Civil Rights votes, left the Democratic Party and were accepted into the Republican Party. That was when the Republican Party changed, and when moderates started to unwelcome.

MartiniShark said:
In other words, we are in complete agreement.

You were heading in the right direction. I just wanted to make sure you made it to the right address.

remoriah said:
One more thing; Al Gore, Sr and 2 other Dems (Byrd + one other) fillibustered the civil rights act. While Goldwater voted against it because he feared it would create a police state; he voted against the Gore amendment to defy the civil rights legislation by not funding it. 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voted with Gore for this racist amendment. Rachel has a way of avoiding the facts to make Dems look good. The history is available everywhere. There is no reason to take the word of any talking head that lies to make points for the parties. This is the reason that so many black voters voted Repub when they were finally allowed to vote..after all it was the party of Lincoln, a Republican. That’s old news but it is part of our history.

Again, hello? What’s with the PARTY stuff? There were NOT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS in the House or Senate in 1964 to pass ANYTHING by themselves.

Do you get that, sir?

“The original House version:[11]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)”

There were only 33 Republicans voting in the SENATE.
There were only 171 Republicans voting in the HOUSE.

Anybody on this messageboard or anywhere else who claims that “Republicans Passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964″ is at BEST a math dunce, and at worst, a bald-faced liar.

sarainitaly said:
Ok, so his dad and grandpa were Dems, and he joined the Republican party. Perhaps then he wasn’t keen on the Dems and their Southern racism.

Really, Sarah? So give me your rationale for why Haley Barbour attended events sponsored by the Council of Conservative Citizens
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/fall/communing-with-the-council

You know about the CCofC right, Sarah? Surely you remember Part 2 of their Statement of Principles:

“We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.”

http://cofcc.org/introduction/statement-of-principles/

Yeah, Sarah…why would ol’ Haley want to participate in a fund raiser with those nice folks, especiall given your impassioned defense of Barbour’s alleged “pro-integration” positions? You would think that a CCofC event would be the LAST PLACE ON EARTH you’d find a “pro-integrationist”, (next to Thanksgiving at the David Duke household, of course).

–Cobra

alamo2 said:
How many times do you have to be told that the racist congressmen, after the Civil Rights votes, left the Democratic Party and were accepted into the Republican Party. That was when the Republican Party changed, and when moderates started to unwelcome.

How do you refute the vote counts above? You want to hang a party because of the voting actions of their minority votes, even though they had higher percentages than the so-called sympathetic Dems. Both parties had support, and both parties had members with actionable opinions. The revisionists want to paint it along party lines, when that was not the case.

More Liberty said:
Damn it. Why does MSNBC keep putting this little boy in Maddows slot. Has she been ill? When is she coming back to host the show?

Man that’s rich. What a witty jester you are. I don’t think I’ve heard that before. Well maybe just in every thread about Maddow, but other than that , very creative.

And Cobra, nobody I read above claimed the Reps passed the bill, they were answering the charge that Reps were responsible for trying to stop it, when the percentages show the majority of Reps favored the bill The very fact that they voted in the 80% range in both chambers is indication they supported it.

More Liberty said:
I know…sometimes I just can’t resist. Sorry.

in that case, you are forgiven. But the joke police will be watching

I went to school in Ms Our high school Murrah in Jackson, integrated my senior year in 1966 with 3 black students, so you are flat wrong about the 1970 date. My Jr College Hinds in 67 was also integrated, not sure of %.So I don’t know where you get your info.Went to Ms State University in 68 and it was integrated also.I’m not saying things were rosy those were very difficult and troubled times in the south and change came slowly at first and a lot of of Ms went down swinging on the issue for a few years there. A good book… /fiction/ ….about Jackson showing some of prevelant race relations and attitudes of the early to mid 60′s in the deep south and Jackson area to read is “The Help” by Katheryn Stocket

Gaylen Regan said:
I went to school in Ms Our high school Murrah in Jackson, integrated my senior year in 1966 with 3 black students, so you are flat wrong about the 1970 date. My Jr College Hinds in 67 was also integrated, not sure of %.So I don’t know where you get your info.Went to Ms State University in 68 and it was integrated also.I’m not saying things were rosy those were very difficult and troubled times in the south and change came slowly at first and a lot of of Ms went down swinging on the issue for a few years there. A good book… /fiction/ ….about Jackson showing some of prevelant race relations and attitudes of the early to mid 60’s in the deep south and Jackson area to read is “The Help” by Katheryn Stocket

Other good books on the period: The Children by David Halberstam; At Canaan’s Edge by Taylor Branch; An American Insurrection by William Doyle.

“It’s fair to say that Rachel Maddow and her producers took issue with this comment.”

Well of course. Rachel Maddow always takes issues with the facts. It’s well known history that the Democrats, led by LBJ, were against the civil rights movement. But when you’re a Progressive like Maddow you don’t have to accept history — you can just revise it!

Tony Westover said:
“It’s fair to say that Rachel Maddow and her producers took issue with this comment.” Well of course. Rachel Maddow always takes issues with the facts. It’s well known history that the Democrats, led by LBJ, were against the civil rights movement. But when you’re a Progressive like Maddow you don’t have to accept history — you can just revise it!

Ah, LBJ was the major force behind the civil rights act. And the Democrats who were against it, for the most part left the party to join the GOP.

writer said:
paul, Goldwater questioned the constitutionality of the civil rights act because he feared it would lead to racial quotas. Then LBJ and the Dems orchestrated the most successful smear job in history. (Don’t vote for Goldwater. We might end up in Vietnam!) LBJ reportedly laughed “We’ll have those nig…. voting for us from now on.” It took Everett Dirksen, a Republican, to break the Democrats filibuster to get the civil rights bill through. All facts the left conveniently ‘overlooks’.

Maybe the truth is that there were racist republicans and democrats in the south then and a few that weren’t.

alamo2 said:
Ah, LBJ was the major force behind the civil rights act. And the Democrats who were against it, for the most part left the party to join the GOP.

Really, all the racists went over to one party? That’s convenient. The recently late Robert Byrd, former Klansman never crossed over, nor did Al Gore Sr. Two prominent Dems who tried to filibuster the bill — then tried to have their historical record muted for future generations.

Pretty educational thread for me. Thanks

MartiniShark said:
Really, all the racists went over to one party? That’s convenient. The recently late Robert Byrd, former Klansman never crossed over, nor did Al Gore Sr. Two prominent Dems who tried to filibuster the bill — then tried to have their historical record muted for future generations.

Must you keep repeating these empty exaggerations. Nobody claimed all the racists went to one party. Trying commenting on things that were actually said rather than reading something into posts that isn’t there.

I went to a Joan Baez concert at Tougaloo College a black college outside Jackson in 1964 or 65 there was a march on the capitol at Jackson going on and finishing the next day. That was my real first integrated experience in Jackson and MS and there was a fair amount of white folks there. I have to admit I went to hear Joan and check out the northern COFO workers who we heard were hot Yankees chicks . But it was eye opening for me I was 15 or 16 at the time. I also remember seeing them carry protesters to the state fairgrounds that they had made into a makeshift holding area /outdoor jail.. all under arrest… in garbage trucks/ yes refuse trucks with wire cages on the back, not the compactor type but the ones they used for limbs and debris..they had them packed in like sardines and they were all singing. it was surreal. several trucks came by in a kinda of ‘mock “parade.. seemed the powers of athority were proud of their catch cause they drove them by the Capitol .They drove by the High school down town where I was going to summer school next to the capitol and you could hear them coming, there was no air conditioning back in those days and the windows were open….they arrested hundreds I guess most of that march… that was summer of 64 for sure and I think it made national news . We were in the news a lot back then and always in a bad light.But like I said there were compassionate and open minded people around too in MS, most were too scared to speak out though and rode the fence.They were bombing black churches and synagogues in the south and there was lots of fear and hatred being preached by the white politicians, media, and even in the churches..

CosmosDan said:
Must you keep repeating these empty exaggerations. Nobody claimed all the racists went to one party. Trying commenting on things that were actually said rather than reading something into posts that isn’t there.

Have you not read Alamo’s posts? He’s repeated that notion repeatedly. Scroll up.

alamo2 said:
How many times do you have to be told that the racist congressmen, after the Civil Rights votes, left the Democratic Party and were accepted into the Republican Party. That was when the Republican Party changed, and when moderates started to unwelcome.

Gaylen Regan said:
I went to a Joan Baez concert at Tougaloo College a black college outside Jackson in 1964 or 65 there was a march on the capitol at Jackson going on and finishing the next day. That was my real first integrated experience in Jackson and MS and there was a fair amount of white folks there. I have to admit I went to hear Joan and check out the northern COFO workers who we heard were hot Yankees chicks . But it was eye opening for me I was 15 or 16 at the time. I also remember seeing them carry protesters to the state fairgrounds that they had made into a makeshift holding area /outdoor jail.. all under arrest… in garbage trucks/ yes refuse trucks with wire cages on the back, not the compactor type but the ones they used for limbs and debris..they had them packed in like sardines and they were all singing. it was surreal. several trucks came by in a kinda of ‘mock “parade.. seemed the powers of athority were proud of their catch cause they drove them by the Capitol .They drove by the High school down town where I was going to summer school next to the capitol and you could hear them coming, there was no air conditioning back in those days and the windows were open….they arrested hundreds I guess most of that march… that was summer of 64 for sure and I think it made national news . We were in the news a lot back then and always in a bad light.But like I said there were compassionate and open minded people around too in MS, most were too scared to speak out though and rode the fence.They were bombing black churches and synagogues in the south and there was lots of fear and hatred being preached by the white politicians, media, and even in the churches..

I appreciate you telling that account here. There are many who post to this blog who either can’t believe, or refuse to believe that America is capable of this kind of thing. Brace yourself for the personal attacks, however, because your account doesn’t follow the narrative that many here want to present.

MartiniShark said:
And Cobra, nobody I read above claimed the Reps passed the bill, they were answering the charge that Reps were responsible for trying to stop it, when the percentages show the majority of Reps favored the bill The very fact that they voted in the 80% range in both chambers is indication they supported it.

Yes, but as with complexities with labeling parties one thing or another, there are MORE numbers to be extrapolated from that data:

“Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%) “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Broken down by REGION, a glaring fact stands out…there were only 11 elected Southern Republicans when this vote took place in both the House and Senate…..combined. You also see by REGION, that Southerners overwhelmingly voted against the CRA1964, while everybody else voted overwhelmingly in favor…regardless of party affiliation.

–Cobra

MartiniShark said:
Have you not read Alamo’s posts? He’s repeated that notion repeatedly. Scroll up.

alamo2 said:
How many times do you have to be told that the racist congressmen, after the Civil Rights votes, left the Democratic Party and were accepted into the Republican Party. That was when the Republican Party changed, and when moderates started to unwelcome.

I have read them, with comprehension. He did not say or mean every single one. He was generalizing and he was correct.

CosmosDan said:
I have read them, with comprehension. He did not say or mean every single one. He was generalizing and he was correct.

Yes, he was generalising, and he was repeating it over and over to imply the Reps took on racists into the party with abandon and were the primary cause in fighting the civil rights law.

. . . the Democrats who were against it, for the most part left the party to join the GOP.

You said I kept repeating exaggerations when I was merely pointing out to him some of the biggest opponents were in fact on the Dems side, and remained there. Hell, you had nearly 125 democratic congressman opposing the bill, I doubt that many turned republican.

Cobra said:
Broken down by REGION, a glaring fact stands out…there were only 11 elected Southern Republicans when this vote took place in both the House and Senate…..combined. You also see by REGION, that Southerners overwhelmingly voted against the CRA1964, while everybody else voted overwhelmingly in favor…regardless of party affiliation. –Cobra

You seem to be arguing a point I never made. I was saying you cannot label one party or the other responsible or to blame in the civil rights era. Your facts are backing that up. Many on this thread are intent with labeling the republicans as trying to block the civil rights legislation but the facts are not there, and in fact they show more dems were opposing, in both percentages and in numbers. If anything it was a southern resistance — from both parties — as your stats show.

MartiniShark said:
You seem to be arguing a point I never made. I was saying you cannot label one party or the other responsible or to blame in the civil rights era. Your facts are backing that up. Many on this thread are intent with labeling the republicans as trying to block the civil rights legislation but the facts are not there, and in fact they show more dems were opposing, in both percentages and in numbers. If anything it was a southern resistance — from both parties — as your stats show.

That’s not how your post read. While there are people on this thread “intent on labeling the republicans as trying to block the civil rights legislation”, your posts don’t flesh out all of the data, and tend to give a more favorable view of the GOP. The data suggests that the only reason less Republicans opposed the CRA1964, is because there were literally “less” Republicans….especially in the South.

That’s certainly not the case in 2010, as we have Southern Republican Senate Candidates like Rand Paul who openly state that they want to REPEAL major parts of the CRA1964…with boisterous support from posters to this blog.

—Cobra

The same people who worry so much about white racism are the ones who ignore racism coming from people such as Wright, Farrakhan, and Sharpton. If it’s bad from one side, it’s bad from the other.

Cobra said:
That’s not how your post read. While there are people on this thread “intent on labeling the republicans as trying to block the civil rights legislation”, your posts don’t flesh out all of the data, and tend to give a more favorable view of the GOP. The data suggests that the only reason less Republicans opposed the CRA1964, is because there were literally “less” Republicans….especially in the South. That’s certainly not the case in 2010, as we have Southern Republican Senate Candidates like Rand Paul who openly state that they want to REPEAL major parts of the CRA1964…with boisterous support from posters to this blog. —Cobra

I’m not sure how you came up with that assessment based on my quotes over a few posts:

But it is utterly asinine to declare one party was for civil rights, and the other opposed. There were members of both parties working pro and con on the issue.

Both parties had support, and both parties had members with actionable opinions. The revisionists want to paint it along party lines, when that was not the case.

I was saying you cannot label one party or the other responsible or to blame in the civil rights era.

Nobody argued that the Reps were responsible for civil rights given they did not have a majority in either chamber. But you cannot deny two things: They voted in favor for civil rights at a higher percentage rate (80% range to the 60-70% range for Dems), and there were in fact Dems working on blocking the legislation through filibuster. So my point that labeling the Republicans as obstructionist in the civil tights era is a smear is supported.

It is the same lie today. Anytime someone says that the republicans have blocked the Obama agenda they are lying. Republicans don’t have the votes to block anything. Yet these liars will repeat that with a straight face. Then the lefty media will back them up.

Jelperman said:
What evidence do you have for Wright’s racism when Obama was a member of his church?

What’s that, writer? No evidence for your claims?

You are a fucking liar!

MartiniShark said:
Yes, he was generalising, and he was repeating it over and over to imply the Reps took on racists into the party with abandon and were the primary cause in fighting the civil rights law.

. . . the Democrats who were against it, for the most part left the party to join the GOP.

You said I kept repeating exaggerations when I was merely pointing out to him some of the biggest opponents were in fact on the Dems side, and remained there. Hell, you had nearly 125 democratic congressman opposing the bill, I doubt that many turned republican.

What he said, with historical accuracy, was that after the civil rights act was passed many southern democrats who opposed it became republicans. As Maddows guest pointed out. There’s a reason that blacks have voted for Democrats far more than they vote for Republicans, and the CRA1964 was the historic turn around point. It’s just a historic fact and nobody is making outrageous claims about it.
Are you familiar with the GOPs southern strategy. It was a plan to exploit racial tensions in the south to bring in more white votes and have racist democrats switch parties. Cute huh?

paulmdoro said:
Mr. Barbour was born in 1947 and will turn 63 in October. A bit of revisionist history?

Were you born in the south? Are you of his generation? If not, how do you know beans about what he’s saying?

OK, I was not born in the US, but since I became a citizen, I have lived a good many years in the south. I have had some interesting conversations who still recalled how things were when Mr. Eisenhower desegregated the schools. It was the Democrats who were standing in the way, and this is the way it was ALL across the south.

I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to look it up and read it for yourself.

pyrope said:
Were you born in the south? Are you of his generation? If not, how do you know beans about what he’s saying?

OK, I was not born in the US, but since I became a citizen, I have lived a good many years in the south. I have had some interesting conversations who still recalled how things were when Mr. Eisenhower desegregated the schools. It was the Democrats who were standing in the way, and this is the way it was ALL across the south.

I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to look it up and read it for yourself.

We have. Looks like 100% of the southern republicans voted against it while it was 94% of the southern democrats voted against it. What was your point again?

alamo2 said:
Ah, LBJ was the major force behind the civil rights act. And the Democrats who were against it, for the most part left the party to join the GOP.

If you go back a ways–to the Eisenhower administration–you would find that it was LBJ who led the charge against the Civil Rights Act–an act that was, in some ways, better than what LBJ eventually signed in that it produced a more level playing field for ALL Americans.

Then, when LBJ did finally sign the act, it was most curious what he said as he signed it.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/20-great-moments-in-liberal-bigotry

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/123709-the-real-history-of-lbj-and-race-goebbles-would-be-proud.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100722050155AAuqLcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

Further evidence is legion. Ronald Kessler had the true bona fides but I couldn’t find his information.

Ann Coulter’s recent column is soooooooooo funny. My sides still hurt from laughing.

Check it out.
http://www.anncoulter.com/

If you don’t laugh, you are a liberal.

Nothing will move a nation of dark skinned people when a racist is clearly on the ballot for POTUS position—so cumon n fella take a drip hope that gator don’t bite ya in your ass bubba Haley Barbour —so I hope the GOP get the message us people don’t want to go that way towards slavery—remember what happened the last time Barbour disrespected those ancestors of the past —a storm came a visiting—that was just a warning–NO we will not see Barbour as the president of the United States ever so he needs to enjoy that there shrimp and retire and watch a nation move toward something more perfect then thee BArbour and his instrument of hate the entity called the GOP or the REPUBLICAN PARTY

OH —by the way the only democratic from the south that desires our respect for now is LBJohnson of Texas —LBJ was a man looking toward a future but became disappointed when the nation in the south was just to weaked minded to understand that the moving toward perfection would mean—get n up and take a bath…now you feel good …now tell the person next to you to take a bath and they feel good and so on and so on…after a while all that is nasty would be a thing in the past and no one would want to feel dirty nasty again…BARBOUR just forgot to bath…