(04-24-2014 11:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  What [Nixon] didn't recognize that those southern Democrats didn't want to join him under a big tent. They just wanted his tent.

How so?

(04-24-2014 09:44 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Oh, and freely kicking the dogshiit out of hippy biitches.

Maybe not. I think as soon as they showed you their hooters, you would have changed your mind. Remember, those were the days of free love without AIDS or even Herpes.

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

Does that change what happened? Do you deny the civil rights struggle in the 60s?

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

He is just race baiting.

(04-24-2014 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

He is just race baiting.

I attended American History class...

(04-24-2014 11:41 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  What [Nixon] didn't recognize that those southern Democrats didn't want to join him under a big tent. They just wanted his tent.

How so?

The concept of the RINO didn't exist before then. Both parties had liberal wings and conservative wings. IMO, there has been a systematic movement to make the Republican party purely conservative, and the Democratic Party purely liberal. Political compromise was still possible because elected officials on both sides of the aisle had to consider the interests and wishes of all their constituents, not just the most extreme or polarized ones.

(04-24-2014 11:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  The concept of the RINO didn't exist before then. Both parties had liberal wings and conservative wings. IMO, there has been a systematic movement to make the Republican party purely conservative, and the Democratic Party purely liberal. Political compromise was still possible because elected officials on both sides of the aisle had to consider the interests and wishes of all their constituents, not just the most extreme or polarized ones.

I agree with all of that. I don't see how it connects with your earlier point about Nixon and the Southern Dems.

From the 1920s to the 1960s (and even for a long time after that), Southern Dems -- who were by far more "racist" and "reactionary" than Trent Lott (for example) ever was -- coexisted with liberals in the Democrats' national party. Beginning in the 1960s, they were willing to coexist with liberals in the Republicans' national party (Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Thomas Kuchel, George Romney, etc.), too.

(04-24-2014 11:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:40 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  But what about the black man who lives on the other side of town because you don't "like his kind" in your neighborhood?

Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

He is just race baiting.

I attended American History class...

Glad to see that you are not denying being a race baiter.

(04-24-2014 12:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:45 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Yes, the past is a strange place, one where wooden barrels were once high technology and for a time, this country was radically segregated.

But take it up with the OP. He picked 1965, not me.

Killjoy.

The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

He is just race baiting.

I attended American History class...

Glad to see that you are not denying being a race baiter.

Sorry, I refuse to romanticize a time of great inequality in America...and who could forget everyones favorite "police action", good ole Vietnam?

(04-24-2014 12:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:48 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The four photographs used in UofMemphis' post don't come with a specific date, but I am positive that all of them are from a point in time prior to 1965.

He is just race baiting.

I attended American History class...

Glad to see that you are not denying being a race baiter.

Sorry, I refuse to romanticize a time of great inequality in America...and who could forget everyones favorite "police action", good ole Vietnam?

Thanks for ruining what could have been a fun thread. Woe is me and the 1960's.

(04-24-2014 12:12 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:50 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  He is just race baiting.

I attended American History class...

Glad to see that you are not denying being a race baiter.

Sorry, I refuse to romanticize a time of great inequality in America...and who could forget everyones favorite "police action", good ole Vietnam?

Thanks for ruining what could have been a fun thread. Woe is me and the 1960's.

No problem, that was the plan...

We should never speak of the moon landing. It glorifies racism.

(04-24-2014 12:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We should never speak of the moon landing. It glorifies racism.

Yep...we didn't even have a black astronaut in 1965. (first was June of 67)

Every period of history has it's issues... Some people are just kill joys..

(04-24-2014 12:00 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  The concept of the RINO didn't exist before then. Both parties had liberal wings and conservative wings. IMO, there has been a systematic movement to make the Republican party purely conservative, and the Democratic Party purely liberal. Political compromise was still possible because elected officials on both sides of the aisle had to consider the interests and wishes of all their constituents, not just the most extreme or polarized ones.

I agree with all of that. I don't see how it connects with your earlier point about Nixon and the Southern Dems.

From the 1920s to the 1960s (and even for a long time after that), Southern Dems -- who were by far more "racist" and "reactionary" than Trent Lott (for example) ever was -- coexisted with liberals in the Democrats' national party. Beginning in the 1960s, they were willing to coexist with liberals in the Republicans' national party (Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Thomas Kuchel, George Romney, etc.), too.

I think the willingness of southern Democrats to coexist with the liberal wing of that party hinged on liberals' reluctance to go all in on the issue of racial equality. When that came to a head in the 60's the exodus to the Republican Party accelerated dramatically. I think the willingness of those conservatives who joined the GOP to play nice with the liberal wing of the party was a short term political calculation, not evidence of moderation. It lasted only for as long as the conservative wing lacked the critical mass to seize control of the party. I believe the personal popularity of Reagan gave them that critical mass in a way Nixon never could.

(04-24-2014 12:21 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We should never speak of the moon landing. It glorifies racism.

Yep...we didn't even have a black astronaut in 1965. (first was June of 67)

We didn't have a black President, in fact we still have never had one, the US shouldn't exist.

(04-24-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:21 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We should never speak of the moon landing. It glorifies racism.

Yep...we didn't even have a black astronaut in 1965. (first was June of 67)

We didn't have a black President, in fact we still have never had one, the US shouldn't exist.

Don't you worry...between Obama and Hillary my generation will fix those issues.

(04-24-2014 12:33 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:21 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We should never speak of the moon landing. It glorifies racism.

Yep...we didn't even have a black astronaut in 1965. (first was June of 67)

We didn't have a black President, in fact we still have never had one, the US shouldn't exist.

Don't you worry...between Obama and Hillary my generation will fix those issues.

Between them there is 1.5 white people and .5 black. You like your racial equality your way don't you?