You are retarded.
I spent most of my life being...Blah blah blah...reading things into my statements that...Blah Blah...simply stated the shift...Blah Blah...I'm a historian...Blah blah. It is pure fantasy to portray this as some great cover up.
Yes, yes, yes--very impressive, you're definitely a victim of whatever.
For a "historian," you're rather flaky on the facts though. I mean, you went out of your way to say that a bunch of southern democrats turned GOP after 1948 (not even bothering to acknowledge the distinctions in character the held amongst their new found GOP brethren), but you conveniently left out that this was after Eisenhower took the Southern states, the person who pushed civil rights act of 1957 legislation, which was well-received. And, yeah, people love to bring up a--thusfar--innocuous "southern strategy" that Nixon allegedly employed. But regardless of the claim, he still ended segregation.
And no, no one's said "cover up" here. That's an imaginative musing from your own fantasy land. Pointing out how easily forgotten the historical racism of the democratic party is simply because they've kowtowed to minority demographics is hardly a claim of a "cover up."
I merely pointed out that many of the racist elements within the Democratic party shifted to the Republicans in the mid-twentieth century.
"Elements." How marvelously ambiguous. Certainly allows you plenty of leg room to imply whatever you want about essentially...anything.
You said that his account of history was retarded and then went on to point out a political "shift" from democrats to republicans in regards to the issue of racism, and felt a minor stab about democratic entitlements would cover your bases...Yeah, that's all you did. "Merely."
