Who knows maybe there will be anoither lawsuit in your future- try me 😉

LOL…everything skippy posts is a little skewed, but he can’t help it, copy and paste is his only response….and nearly always wrong.

After the Civil Rights Act was passed, a number of the old Southern Democrats began migrating to the Republican Party, leading Richard Nixon and his colleagues to develop the “Southern Strategy” for claiming those disaffected, white, southern voters who felt betrayed by the Democratic Party’s open support for further expanding the civil rights of blacks and other groups. In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran for president on a platform opposing the Civil Rights Act, in a campaign where Ronald Reagan rose to national political prominence by supporting Goldwater and his policies.

By any reasonable measure, the shift of the “Solid South” from Democratic to Republican in the 1960’s was and remains a direct result of the national democratic support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. When you hear a former Democrat turned Republican say they changed parties because their former party left them, what they’re really saying is their former party betrayed them by supporting the Civil Rights Act.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#3

This same Census Bureau data shows that our poverty rate today is essentially identical to what it was in 1966 despite the $ trillions spent to eradicate it. So much for your bogus hypothesis about LBJ’s Not So Great Society programs alleviating poverty. Think about it, why would self interested poverty bureaucrats want to abolish the very thing that provides the raison d’etre for their jobs?

It’s also interesting to note that poverty rates declined substantially in the early 1960’s and again during the 80’s even though top marginal tax rates were cut dramatically during those times. Oops, that doesn’t fit the poverty pimp narrative either.

#1- Nixon and Ford were in office from 68-76, which destorys your idiotic timeline;

#2- The Congress, House and Senate, were 100% Democrtic majority when Ronnie Raygun was President form 80-88.

This information is very easy to find if you’re at all interested in the truth.

Lincoln certainly didn’t begin the war with the intention of abolishing slavery, but the Republican Party itself was created with the primary purpose of abolition and Lincoln was its first national candidate. To claim he didn’t care about slavery ignores history. The states eventually comprising the CSA began their secession movement upon Lincoln’s election. If you read the debates over secession in places like South Carolina and Texas you’ll find that the fear over the pending abolition of slavery was their primary concern and motivating factor.

Lincoln, like all people, was a man of his time and his thoughts on racial separation reflected the most progressive and classical liberal thoughts of the day.

You’re correct that the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery, but there were no efforts to expand slavery in the north anyway. The years leading up to the Civil War best exemplify the rising tensions over slavery with “Bloody Kansas” being the flashpoint over such possible expansion.

I’m always amused when our neo-Confederates jump in and claim the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. There’s no evidence or reputable historian who would support such an outlandish claim.