The author isn't a historian, but I think he's reasonably close to what historians have been pointing out for years.  

 

Nice far left liberal rant!

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

We have to balance your outrageous fascist propagada somehow.

-------------------------

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

wow, that was the epitome of liberal beliefs, their own constituants are stupid and need to be lied to to get them to rally to the liberal cause which is really for their own good if they were intelligent enough to understand that, and the Conservatives are ignorant Racist rednecks who vote out of hatred and class envy....   Delusional... what is as telling as anything is when somebody quotes web sites like this as though they are telling Truth with a capital T instead of spewing political bull shit designed to rally the ignorant stupid and misinformed voters into justifying a recent political loss brought about by 'The People'...

-------------------------

A bit more from a North Carolina NAACP leader.

Eric Foner (Columbia University) is probably the first historian to read on the period after the Civil War.  His book is part of an Oxford University Press's series on American history.  McPherson's (Princeton University) classic covering the Civil War is another in the series.  

I really have a hard time understanding how people can claim that having an ID to vote is any way analogous to a poll tax. It is certainly true that voter ID laws will lower the Democratic turnout, simply because the Demoractic base is to lazy to an obtain an ID, that, in many places, is required by law to even appear in public-- in my opinion these people are not up the responsibility of voting. I understand why Democrats don't want to be effected negatively at the polls, but no one is being systematically disenfranchised-- some people are so poor at running their lives that they can't even get an ID, and these people vote Democrat 100% of the time.

 

In the same way that Feminists want a woman president, but would reject Sarah Palin outright (for good reason), Tea Partiers reject Barack Obama. The Tea Party would embrace a black man with a platform of personal responsibility and low taxes. 

-------------------------

Two Finger Ring 

Somebodywhocan'tdefendhisinsult Can you take that article and point out where and how it wrong? Simply calling it stupid, delusional and propaganda without doing what the author did, actually support your points and conclusions, just wastes your time and ours. Why don't you actually take one of those quotes and counterpoint it, or prove that it does not support the author's points, or show us where his premise is flawed, his facts are wrong, i.e. share your thoughts and not your feelings (crybaby stuff vs. logic). Give it a shot.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Late in 2012, I came out of the Lincoln movie with two historical mysteries to solve:How did the two parties switch places regarding the South, white supremacy, and civil rights? In Lincoln’s day, a radical Republican was an abolitionist, and when blacks did get the vote, they almost unanimously voted Republican. Today, the archetypal Republican is a Southern white, and blacks are almost all Democrats. How did American politics get from there to here?One of the movie’s themes was how heavily the war’s continuing carnage weighed on Lincoln. (It particularly came through during Grant’s guided tour of the Richmond battlefield.) Could any cause, however lofty, justify this incredible slaughter? And yet, I realized, Lincoln was winning. What must the Confederate leaders have been thinking, as an even larger percentage of their citizens died, as their cities burned, and as the accumulated wealth of generations crumbled? Where was their urge to end this on any terms, rather than wait for complete destruction?                                                                                                                                     This is the start of his article. he does not answer either of these 2 questions but immediatly starts a text book liberal rant, we a lucky that somebodyelse went back over his article and put in commas and periods because it reads like he spewed it out in one long tirade from the front of a classroom. every paragraph after this is Rhetoric... almost every line is a false liberal belief of what southern white people all must believe and that all white people are conspiring to keep the leash on the black man...                                       One of the reasons Propaganda exists is so Guvment can control the population and make the ignorant masses believe that they are not slaves but that they decided of their own free will to surender their freedoms and participate in the detruction and marginalizing of those who insist on living free.                                                                                            This last election has proven him wrong, the archtype Republican voter is NOT as you liberals portray a White Racist Bigot, but are in fact the whole of middle America striving to be free.                                                     BUT it has also shown that despite the carnage of the last 6 years the typical Democrat voter is just as ignorant as a post...  The poor got poorer, the middle class got poorer, every demographic of the Democratic party took a major hit and yet they are unable to adjust their thinking they Can't, not to save their lives, or the lives of their unborn children, they Can't see the Problems that started in their ancestors slavery and continued in Reconstruction and was aliviated somewhat by the REPUBLICAN party in the 50s and 60s, is CAUSED by the Democrats, by their Keeping their Power on the backs of the slaves and now on the backs of slave decendants...               The fact that Blacks vote largly Democrat despite the Democrat party was the party of slavery, it was the party of the KKK, it was the party of the Jim Crow laws, and it is the party that divide the country into Rich and poor, black and white, old and young...     Democrats governing style is divide and conquer.... Republicans is unite and lead.....     His premise, his arguement and assertions in this article are all old 50s and 60s Rhetoric that the Democrats trot out every time the lose an election as a way for their base to nurse a grudge... Here he says... chew on this for the next 2 years.... the Republicans won because they are all Racist southern rednecks....      If the Liberals can just keep this Narrative alive, keep these lies in the hearts of their foolowers, then once again the stupidity of the voters can once again allow the Democrats back in power....

-------------------------

There's the laugh for the day.

-------------------------
...

We disagree but thank you for fleshing out your opinions and taking the time.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

"When in the majority, Confederates protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, then beatings and fires, and, if that fails, murder."

The Blueprint.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

"When in the majority, DEMOCRATS protect the established order through democracy. If they are not in the majority, but have power, they protect it through the authority of law either by enforcing the law unfairly or ignoring the laws they don't like. If the law is against them, but they have social standing, they create shams of law, which are kept in place through the power of social disapproval NOW called Political correctness. If disapproval is not enough, they keep the wrong people from claiming their legal rights by the threat of ostracism and economic retribution again Political correctness and boycotting those who disagree. If that is not intimidating enough, there are physical threats, sit ins and civil disobediance, and, if that fails, Protests violence in the street and against businesses.."

The MIRROR. You can see the last 6 years in it if you only look.>>

-------------------------

Barneysfrank, the poll taxes were mostly fairly modest, $10 or so.  They were ruled unconstitutional.  That was years ago, so the equivalent now could be quite a bit more, but probably no more than the cost of getting a state-approved photo ID.  

In a recent case, a federal judge's majority accepted that Texas ID requirements amounted to a poll tax.  I think the Supreme Court didn't accept that argument.