If John F. Kennedy were alive today, would he...

[legion]

Yep, and when Ike had "advisors" there, the French were still fighting. They didn't bail until LBJ had fully taken over.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nota

I know the southern GOP hates to admitt their roots
that does not change the facts

denial is not a cohesive thought process
nore is spin or BIG LIES

Boy, were you stone in the 60s!!! If it wasn't for Republicans, the Civil Rights Bills would have never passed, and what party does KKK Bird belong too???

Here is a what really happened, and Kennedy wasn't on board from the start!!!

As a presidential campaigner in 1960, Kennedy largely avoided the civil rights issue for basically political reasons. Although he endorsed some kind of federal action, he could not afford to antagonize southern Democrats whose support he desperately needed to defeat Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon. In outlining the most important issues for the campaign early in 1960, Kennedy ignored civil rights rather than jeopardize his political support.

After his election in November 1960, the new President failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962, again for political reasons. He needed southern support in Congress for his other foreign and domestic programs. It was particularly risky to introduce specific civil rights legislation in the Senate. The Senate filibuster rule made it possible for a minority of senators to prevent passage and to obstruct other Senate business. To overcome this obstacle, 67 members would have to support some version of civil rights legislation and vote to end the inevitable filibuster. It was difficult for the Kennedy administration to propose a bill without considering carefully the politics of congressional passage.

Although Kennedy accomplished some strictly limited improvements in equal rights by executive action, the civil rights movement generally proceeded without Presidential support. When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

Yep, Republicans made it happen!!!

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party's forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort

[Moneyguy1]

OK.....

Comments about Ronnie Reagan, describing him as a dolt or as a genius. Neither being true.

The many times that Gore has been labelled with "inventing the internet".

The many advocates of the reasons for going to (or staying out of) Iraq.

Now we could go into other areas where people of recent history have been labelled conventiently as being this or that, and all of these are, historically, wrong since no individual, whether that individual be a current or recent president can be categorized in a few words. People are too complex for that.

Racism did not exist in the South. An excellent example of history being distorted. Southern voters moving from "Democrat" to "Republican" during the turbulent 50s and 60s. The role of LBJ in the equality (civil rights) movement. He actually did say at one point that "We (the Democratic party) have just lost the South". Much of this was covered in the recent PBS special "The War".

How many incidents of something being taken out of context, with only those parts that suit a specific argument, such as the arguments about medical coverage? How about some honesty as to what percentage of those on the "public dole" are children and the very old? To make statements that "all" those receiving assistance are stupid and lazy is disingenuous and wrong.

How about the generalities that all government employees are somehow inferior to employees in the public sector? Most posts re: this are based on an individual's experiences with one or a few individuals.

Maybe I am being too general here as well but so much posted here is conjecture and opinion, sometimes presented as fact. Liberalism is somehow bad. Conservatives have no imagination, and so on.

We can, in retrospect, say that our words have been misinterpreted, and we are being misunderstood. But, the truth of the matter is that history is writen by the victors.

Sorry that I cannot list every inconsistency, but they exist no matter where one looks, either here or in the media. It is just too easy to simplify diffiuclt questions, reduce them to sound bytes and the public (even Pelacinites) begins to believe them. Goebbels was correct: "Tell the same lie oftern enough and with enough conviction and it will ultimately become the truth!!".

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nota

the simple fact is the shift in power in the south was driven
by racist switching partys to the GOP
hate not ideals powered that switch
so it is eazy to see why the GOP members willNOT admitt that fact

Not to let facts get in your way, and why would racist switch to the party that strongly supported civil rights???



Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican
By Frances Rice

http://www.errvideo.com/why%20mlk%20jr%20was%20gop.html

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

The dems have done just that, kept the black man down, and Bird is still a dem today!!!

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by dd74

Essentially, two questions: 1) Would JFK even go into Iraq? 2) Would he have pulled out by now?

Bonus question: considering he is more conservative than Bush, would that dictate his policy with Iraq.

"Different man, different time," or "hard to say," aren't answers. Expand, think, philosophize.

BTW: all JFK abandoned in Bay of Pigs were some Cuban Batista hopefuls. No U.S. soldiers were involved in the actual invasion, and if so, I certainly don't believe any U.S. soldiers were "abandoned."

First of all, abandoning anyone you agreed to support is poor judgement at best. The Cubans where honorable men.

Given Kennedy's proclivity (via McGeorge Bundy and to a lessor degree the tenants of the policy of containment as first suggested by George F. Kennan in 1947) to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." he would have, especially given the importance of the region.

He began the escalation of troops in Vietnam in order to support the Diem regime. He did believe, however, that in the long run Diem would need to fight the war with his own troops: ..."to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences".

This was classic containment strategy, support your boy, but let them do as much of the fighting as possible. This is not unlike any rational goal but often unattainable.

But we were engaged and now the pressure, once it became clear the Diem was a disaster, was how to get out? My belief is that Kennedy would not have escalated the war to the degree that Johnson did, that he would have worked more closely with the Soviets and the Vietnamese to find a face saving strategy.

If that did not work, then he was in for the long haul, just like Bush in Iraq. Since I know more than a few who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, this is what I think Kennedy, not me would be able to pull off, something Bush has not: "There have been less than 4000 casualties in this war to save a great nation and establish peace in a volatile, critical region. We will honor their sacrifice by seeing the job done."

And the MSM would support him.

Bonus question is inane.

[Racerbvd]

Representatives and senators could not ignore the impact of social protest. In a confidential memorandum, one Republican senator asked in May 1963 that Republicans meet the challenge by proposing a legislative initiative to revise Senate rules to make it easier to pass a civil rights bill which would cut off federal funds to programs that discriminated against African Americans. In suggesting this action, the senator made the link between social conditions and legislation clear when he said that "recent events in racial relations in Birmingham, Alabama and elsewhere, in the North and the South, have demonstrated the critical need for further action by the Congress . . . toward righting the wrongs and ending the disadvantages of the past."

This sure doesn't look like the dems were supporting it

House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

First of all, abandoning anyone you agreed to support is poor judgement at best. The Cubans where honorable men.

Given Kennedy's proclivity (via McGeorge Bundy and to a lessor degree the tenants of the policy of containment as first suggested by George F. Kennan in 1947) to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." he would have, especially given the importance of the region.

He began the escalation of troops in Vietnam in order to support the Diem regime. He did believe, however, that in the long run Diem would need to fight the war with his own troops: ..."to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences".

This was classic containment strategy, support your boy, but let them do as much of the fighting as possible. This is not unlike any rational goal but often unattainable.

But we were engaged and now the pressure, once it became clear the Diem was a disaster, was how to get out? My belief is that Kennedy would not have escalated the war to the degree that Johnson did, that he would have worked more closely with the Soviets and the Vietnamese to find a face saving strategy.

If that did not work, then he was in for the long haul, just like Bush in Iraq. Since I know more than a few who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, this is what I think Kennedy, not me would be able to pull off, something Bush has not: "There have been less than 4000 casualties in this war to save a great nation and establish peace in a volatile, critical region. We will honor their sacrifice by seeing the job done."

And the MSM would support him.

Bonus question is inane.

Your answer makes very little sense. At least it concludes nothing as far as my initial question. It seems that you're saying Kennedy would as he did in Vietnam, let the locals fight it out among themselves. And as to Iraq, he'd do better than Bush because he'd take the same tactic. How would that work given the country is being invaded by Islamic terorists who create havoc out of will and whim?

As to Cuba - if Cuba at all had any real importance, why use individuals who were overthrown from the outset by the regime to regain the overthrown power? Honor? Please. As honorable as you would like to "think" these men were, they were expendable. Expendable translates into half-measures, which the entire Bay of Pigs was - a half-measured attempt with expendable lives.

Again, pattened proof how horrible a statesman Kennedy was and would be today, IMO.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Bonus question is inane.

You may as well explain this while you have my attention.

Again: Bonus question: considering he is more conservative than Bush, would that dictate his policy with Iraq?

Kennedy is more conservative. What would he have done? What should he have done? Pop a couple pain pills and call it a day? Or flatten Iraq?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by dd74

Your answer makes very little sense. At least it concludes nothing as far as my initial question. It seems that you're saying Kennedy would as he did in Vietnam, let the locals fight it out among themselves. And as to Iraq, he'd do better than Bush because he'd take the same tactic. How would that work given the country is being invaded by Islamic terorists who create havoc out of will and whim?

As to Cuba - if Cuba at all had any real importance, why use individuals who were overthrown from the outset by the regime to regain the overthrown power? Honor? Please. As honorable as you would like to "think" these men were, they were expendable. Expendable translates into half-measures, which the entire Bay of Pigs was - a half-measured attempt with expendable lives.

Again, pattened proof how horrible a statesman Kennedy was and would be today, IMO.

I'll try again: Kennedy would have invaded, would have tried to pull a coalition together, but, once engaged, would stay the course, just like Bush, when it became clear that the locals weren't going to pull the load, until it was strategically possible to get out.

I was trying to pull actual anecdotes from Kennedy's decisions to help you along.

I never said Kennedy was a horrible statesman, but your comment on "expendable lives" is deplorable.

Your ignorance of Cuba speaks volumes...but it is what it is.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by legion

Yep, and when Ike had "advisors" there, the French were still fighting. They didn't bail until LBJ had fully taken over.

I think the French left after Dien Bien Phu was taken over, the French built the fort in a valley and from the start Ho Chi Minh started building gun emplacements in the hills surrounding the fort. They opened the fort and Ho opened fire. The French knew we had bombers close and asked Ike to bomb the tunnels/guns for them. The people in power decided the French weren't handling the place well and didn't help. I think this happened in 1954 or 1956, I will look it up when I get home if anyone cares. When JFK left office I think he had 40,000 troops in Viet Nam, LBJ really built it up. LBJ and McNamar's war.
Like I said, the first year Nixon was in office he cut the troops in half.
Ho's focus in life was a free Viet Nam, get the French out, and the only people that would help him were the communists. He had asked Truman for help before but we wouldn't help him.

[BeyGon]

Seahawk
"He began the escalation of troops in Vietnam in order to support the Diem regime. He did believe, however, that in the long run Diem would need to fight the war with his own troops: ..."to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences".

JFK met Diem when JFK was a Senator, they were both Catholic, JFK was responsible for putting him in power, once in power, to get anything you had to be Catholic, all land reforms went to Catholics, the Monks were being killed and monastarys burned. That is why we saw the monks setting fire to themselves in the streets. With this setup, we could never win the hearts and minds of the locals.
As far as them fighting, the really great line in "Full Metal Jacket" was "here, we will trade you an ARVN Rifle, it's only been dropped once."

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Your ignorance of Cuba speaks volumes...but it is what it is.

Ignorant of Cuba? LOL! What is there to be ignorant of? It was overthrown and Fidel remains in power. Any other nuances involving Cuba scarcely brings it above a *****hole island in a humid climate that hasn't advanced since 1959.

That may not be "volumes," but that's about all one needs to know concerning Cuba.

Ignorance of The Bay of Pigs - let's see. Cuban exiles funded by U.S. go in and FAIL to overthrow Castro, and the U.S. TURNS the other way because it doesn't want to be overtly associated with the embarrassing failure of EXPENDABLE BATISTA LOYALISTS to overthrow Castro, not to mention the bigger picture, which was rattle the USSR's cage. As is, it doesn't matter because the Cuban Missile Crisis would become a reality one year later.

As far as honorable men and how deplorable my regard of them is - My point was the U.S. government believed the men in the Bay of Pigs expendable. Kennedy makes critical changes in the landing zone of the exiles because he's uncertain of what the targets are, further putting these men in harm's way. He doesn't know what to invade and from where to do it - anti-Castro Trinidad or the beaches at Giron and Zapatos. As is, he and his advisors change it to the beaches, which cuts the rebel forces in half, and anyway, the Cubans already know about the invasion as they have spies in Miami and elsewhere prior to the invasion. It's quite obvious as they were outnumbered and poorly trained that they hadn't the least bit of ability against the Cuban army. Scores died. As to whether honorable or not - doesn't matter. They failed. They died. If you want/can prove otherwise, then explain why the Bay of Pigs was a disaster?

I am afraid ignorance (or fantasy) lies with you as you believe the Bay of Pigs to be some meritous effort on the part of Batista supporter/warriors. Well, it wasn't. More likely, B of P was a disinterested sacrifice orchestrated by exiles full of Batista's vitriol, and a misguided and confused Kennedy administration who didn't have the slightest clue of what diplomacy was, other than by funding and training a few thousand Island Rambos.

Viva la raza!

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I'll try again: Kennedy would have invaded, would have tried to pull a coalition together, but, once engaged, would stay the course, just like Bush, when it became clear that the locals weren't going to pull the load, until it was strategically possible to get out.
Bush is doing/has done this.

I was trying to pull actual anecdotes from Kennedy's decisions to help you along.
You should rely on clearer anecdotes.

I never said Kennedy was a horrible statesman, but your comment on "expendable lives" is deplorable.
I never said those lives were expendable. Kennedy thought otherwise, however. Kennedy was a horrible statesman - I do think that.

Your ignorance of Cuba speaks volumes...but it is what it is.

Recap from my last post: LOL!

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Seahawk
"He began the escalation of troops in Vietnam in order to support the Diem regime. He did believe, however, that in the long run Diem would need to fight the war with his own troops: ..."to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences".

JFK met Diem when JFK was a Senator, they were both Catholic, JFK was responsible for putting him in power, once in power, to get anything you had to be Catholic, all land reforms went to Catholics, the Monks were being killed and monastarys burned. That is why we saw the monks setting fire to themselves in the streets. With this setup, we could never win the hearts and minds of the locals.
As far as them fighting, the really great line in "Full Metal Jacket" was "here, we will trade you an ARVN Rifle, it's only been dropped once."

I agree...my comments were in the context of DD's posit(s)...my Father was in country as part of the first 16,000 men. His experiences caused him to resign his commission as a Major...this from a guy that was in the top 1% at West Point in '52.

His future wasn't bright, and he doesn't wear shades

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by dd74

Recap from my last post: LOL!

Ok.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I agree...my comments were in the context of DD's posit(s)...my Father was in country as part of the first 16,000 men. His experiences caused him to resign his commission as a Major...this from a guy that was in the top 1% at West Point in '52.

His future wasn't bright, and he doesn't wear shades

Yeah, I knew yours was an emotional response in lieu of fact. I can't say I wouldn't feel the same as you. But the facts still stand.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by dd74

Yeah, I knew yours was an emotional response in lieu of fact. I can't say I wouldn't feel the same as you. But the facts still stand.

I will beg off, but before I do, I never get emotional about facts, which you have yet to present. Why are you so angry? You asked me to present how JFK would respond today...I am sorry I tried.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

I will beg off, but before I do, I never get emotional about facts, which you have yet to present. Why are you so angry? You asked me to present how JFK would respond today...I am sorry I tried.

I didn't present facts, or I didn't present facts you want to read? Yeah. Okay.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by dd74

...be more conservative than George W. Bush? Or better yet, Dick Cheney?

I heard somewhere, maybe from a guest on Charlie Rose, that Kennedy would indeed be more conservative than who we have in office. It's a serious question. Would JFK be more conservative?

Possibly, in an adult non-psychotic way.

[nota]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Not to let facts get in your way, and why would racist switch to the party that strongly supported civil rights???



Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican
By Frances Rice

'' "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.''



The dems have done just that, kept the black man down, and Bird is still a dem today!!!

nothing is 100%
but most of the racist southern demo's became members of the GOP

yes there were LIBERAL northern GOP Senators who did vote for the civil rights acts

''Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party.''

key word is all

''Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not xxx migrate to the Republican Party.'' BS PURE BIG LIE SPIN
spin it anyway you want
I knew who the racist asshats were
and the worst of them are now in the GOP camp
the few who stayed in demo party gave up the racist BS
those on the GOP side just changed the code words
the hate remains the same

''Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.''

well there was no point in saying how the southern Republicans voted
there were damm few to NONE in office
but there were liberal Republicans something now about as rare
and split the vote left/right and far more rightwingers voted against then for civil rights