# Republicans..The real allies of African Americans



## Jroc

*Historically Significant Black Experiences 

Historical Points of Interest *

1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.

2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it. 

3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate. 

4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.

5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860. 
6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;

7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.

8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
&#8221; 
9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.

10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.

11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families

12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.

13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;

14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.


15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being. 

16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221; 


17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221; 

18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools. 

19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.

20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.

21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

http://biblechurchypsi.org/history.html


----------



## Truthmatters

If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important


----------



## Jroc

Truthmatters said:


> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important



If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote 









Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html


----------



## Truthmatters

so you think only black women have abortions?


----------



## rikules

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History





LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and the ACLU have been the best friends of blacks

CONSERVATIVES have worked very hard to deny them rights and equality


----------



## Jroc

rikules said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and the ACLU have been the best friends of blacks
> 
> CONSERVATIVES have worked very hard to deny them rights and equality
Click to expand...




I give you facts you give me nothing. Sorry doesn't work with me....try again


----------



## Jroc

Truthmatters said:


> so you think only black women have abortions?



Abortion rate per live births is 4 times higher amoung blacks then Caucassions.


----------



## Jroc

Republicans want vouchers. Blacks and all poor children are stuck in failing inner city public schools because of the Democrat party&#8217;s alliance with the teachers union.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Nuy_gbMtc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Nuy_gbMtc[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important



Although liberal media support the *old wives tale* of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:

&#8220;The findings of this analysis suggest that *voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect *on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of *the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded.* When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, *minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting *as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.&#8221;
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout | The Heritage Foundation

Now is your chance to convince the members of the board that you are, contrary to so many posts, able to be educated!


----------



## Jroc

More truth for the ignorant.....


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

*The 'Republicans' passed 1964 Civil Rights Act *

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of representatives would pass the bill. In the Senate, Minority Leader

*Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans*, and former residential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of
later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. 

The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124, a vote in which *80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted &#8220;yes&#8221;. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting &#8220;no&#8221;. *President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964. Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/hr7152/Freep.pdf


----------



## Truthmatters

Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Evidence of caging in the United States[edit] 1980sIn 1981 and 1986 the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to predominately African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. Due to the violation of the Voting Rights Act, the RNC was taken to court. Its officials entered a consent decree which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities or conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[5]

[edit] 2004 US ElectionBBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:


----------



## Jroc

Truthmatters said:


> Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Evidence of caging in the United States[edit] 1980sIn 1981 and 1986 the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to predominately African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. Due to the violation of the Voting Rights Act, the RNC was taken to court. Its officials entered a consent decree which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities or conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[5]
> 
> [edit] 2004 US ElectionBBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:




Humm.......ok...did you read PoliticalChic's post? Any attempt to verify that voters are legitimate is voter intimidation in the liberal world. Show ID ..voter intimidation I'm not impressed with you're lame post can you refute anything I posted? Truth does matter


----------



## konradv

Why did most of the white Democrats become Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in the 60s?  Seems you're trying to cling to a piece of history that passed you by a long time ago!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Truthmatters said:


> Caging (voter suppression) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Evidence of caging in the United States[edit] 1980sIn 1981 and 1986 the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out letters to predominately African-American neighborhoods. When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. Due to the violation of the Voting Rights Act, the RNC was taken to court. Its officials entered a consent decree which prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities or conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[5]
> 
> [edit] 2004 US ElectionBBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled "State Implementation Template III.doc" that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:



"When tens of thousands of them were returned undeliverable, the party successfully challenged the voters and had them deleted from voting rolls. "

"...prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that targeted minorities or conducting mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."[..."

"Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. "
Fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, this means that fraud is acceptable if done by minorities???? 

It appears to me that the fraud perpetrators were able to find a judge, no doubt Democrat-appointed, who was more than willing to grovel and pander to groups authorized to commit fraud.
Am I correct?

Would you be opposed to laws that cover all Americans, you know, equally?


----------



## Jroc

konradv said:


> Why did most of the white Democrats become Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in the 60s?  Seems you're trying to cling to a piece of history that passed you by a long time ago!!!



 Congratulations! You are officially included amongst the brainwashed. 

*How many Dixiecrats joined the GOP after 1964?*

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964. 

Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

And as we all know by now, the ONLY admitted former KKK member in Congress today is Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK.

So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?

Is it a myth?

Or just another Democrat LIE?
So the only Dixiecrats who switched are Thurmond, Helms, and Godwin.

Only THREE???

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100212105354AAsKqHz


----------



## konradv

Jroc said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did most of the white Democrats become Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in the 60s?  Seems you're trying to cling to a piece of history that passed you by a long time ago!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations! You are officially included amongst the brainwashed.
> 
> *How many Dixiecrats joined the GOP after 1964?*
> 
> How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?
> 
> Orval Fabus
> Benjamin Travis Laney
> John Stennis
> James Eastland
> Allen Ellender
> Russell Long
> John Sparkman
> John McClellan
> Richard Russell
> Herman Talmadge
> George Wallace
> Lester Maddox
> John Rarick
> Robert Byrd
> Al Gore, Sr.
> Bull Connor
> 
> In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.
> 
> Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.
> 
> And as we all know by now, the ONLY admitted former KKK member in Congress today is Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK.
> 
> So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?
> 
> Is it a myth?
> 
> Or just another Democrat LIE?
> So the only Dixiecrats who switched are Thurmond, Helms, and Godwin.
> 
> Only THREE???
> 
> How many Dixiecrats joined the GOP after 1964? - Yahoo! Answers
Click to expand...


Who said I was just talking about politicians?  If there were only 3, how do Republicans keep getting elected in the South?  The voters obviously followed the politicians, regardless of your cherry-picked list of famous names.


----------



## Jroc

konradv said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did most of the white Democrats become Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in the 60s?  Seems you're trying to cling to a piece of history that passed you by a long time ago!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations! You are officially included amongst the brainwashed.
> 
> *How many Dixiecrats joined the GOP after 1964?*
> 
> How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?
> 
> Orval Fabus
> Benjamin Travis Laney
> John Stennis
> James Eastland
> Allen Ellender
> Russell Long
> John Sparkman
> John McClellan
> Richard Russell
> Herman Talmadge
> George Wallace
> Lester Maddox
> John Rarick
> Robert Byrd
> Al Gore, Sr.
> Bull Connor
> 
> In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.
> 
> Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.
> 
> And as we all know by now, the ONLY admitted former KKK member in Congress today is Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK.
> 
> So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?
> 
> Is it a myth?
> 
> Or just another Democrat LIE?
> So the only Dixiecrats who switched are Thurmond, Helms, and Godwin.
> 
> Only THREE???
> 
> How many Dixiecrats joined the GOP after 1964? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said I was just talking about politicians?  If there were only 3, how do Republicans keep getting elected in the South?  The voters obviously followed the politicians, regardless of your cherry-picked list of famous names.
Click to expand...



What is you're point? Do you have one? The purpose of this thread is to point out that Republicans are traditional allies of African Americans, always have been. Shall we look at what liberal Democrat policies have done to Black American families? I'm doing this slowly as to keep this thread going for a while to inform the uninformed and you appear to be one of them, now a little more info for you.. learn something. 

Republicans are pro-life, they dont support the dems and their allies the pro-choice movement Planned Parenthood; they are horrified by the slaughter of the innocent, to which disproportionate number of them are Black babies. I'm actually saying that most dems don't care about the history, and most liberal blacks are ignorant of the history. black politicians have sold out for political power. 




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

An example of a sellout....

*REV. JESSE JACKSON*

The only associate of Dr. King that has become a pro-Choice advocate is the Rev. Jesse Jackson. But this was not always so. From the 1960s until about 1980 Rev. Jackson was a staunch pro-Life advocate. Father Richard A. Donnelly writes: 

"The most well-known religious leader who has parted from the pro-life stand of his leader, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (Current News, p.3 online) 
In many speeches Rev. Jackson gave during the late 1960s and 1970s he always likened abortion to slavery and genocide. Rev. Jackson was a featured speaker at the 1977 pro-Life "March on Washington", where he told the tens of thousands who had gathered the following: 

"There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life,...that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.
What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and hat kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth." (Abortion Flip-Flops, p.2 online) 
Steven Hayward writes: 

"And then there was the prominent Democrat who said of abortion in 1973 that it is 'too nice a word for something cold, like murder.' That author of these words was the Rev. Jesse Jackson." (Who Are The Extremists?, p.3 online) 
In a letter to Congress Rev. Jackson once wrote: 

"As a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants.***
...in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore humman life begins when teh sperm and egg join." (American Life League Newsroom, 17 Jan 01, p.1 online) 
Pro-Life advocate and President of the American Life League, Judie Brown, has written: 

"As Jackson implied, a human person exists from fertilization/conception. Jackson's remarkable admissions are facts that cannot be changed with time, no matter how many politicians abandone this truth for the sake of political gain." (ibid.) 
Why did Rev. Jackson turn from a pro-Life advocate to a pro-Choice advocate? Some have speculated it had to do with his bids to become President of the U.S. Some claim that the Democratic Party hierarchy informed Jackson in 1983 that they would oppose his bid to be nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate if he did not take "the Party-line" (i.e. become pro-choice). Rev. Jackson ran for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988. He lost both bids.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abortion


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.

Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.

Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.

Try this one on for size ...







Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?






That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*

Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.

Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.

That's not a secret.


----------



## Jroc

BlackAsCoal said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
Click to expand...


So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
Click to expand...


In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.

Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.

How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.


----------



## Jroc

BlackAsCoal said:


> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.



You haven't demonstrated anything. You say becouse there are more Black congress people in the Democrat party says something? How so? give me you're reasons. how has the Democrat party helped black Americans? If you can't list them you have no arguement.


----------



## Publius1787

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



For historical accuracy I must tell you that th reason republicans helped the slaves so much is because they wanted republicans to get elected to southern states. You see, they opened a big can of worms by constitutionaly freeing the slaves as slaves could now be counted as a full man for representation purposes and not 3/5ths of a man. This gave southern democrats more representation in congress. Thats why they put the south under military rule and wouldent let them back in to the Union until the south adopted the 14th amendment which took away representation from any state if former slaves were denied the vote. (Notice that women arent mentioned). Yet at the same time the republicans had installed black codes in the north to the likes of which would make Jim Crow laws look like equal oppertunity.


----------



## Jroc

Publius1787 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For historical accuracy I must tell you that th reason republicans helped the slaves so much is because they wanted republicans to get elected to southern states. You see, they opened a big can of worms by constitutionaly freeing the slaves as slaves could now be counted as a full man for representation purposes and not 3/5ths of a man. This gave southern democrats more representation in congress. Thats why they put the south under military rule and wouldent let them back in to the Union until the south adopted the 14th amendment which took away representation from any state if former slaves were denied the vote. (Notice that women arent mentioned). Yet at the same time the republicans had installed black codes in the north to the likes of which would make Jim Crow laws look like equal oppertunity.
Click to expand...


Really? So they worked to free the slaves so they could get their vote? That may be part of it,  I see nothing wrong with that. Anyway the reason the 3/5ths clause was put in the Constitution was to limit the power of the southern states so as to keep slavery in check and eventually eliminate it




> *black codes*
> 
> Laws, enacted in the former Confederate states after the American Civil War, that restricted the freedom of former slaves and were designed to assure white supremacy. They originated in the slave codes, which defined slaves as property. In some states these codes included vagrancy laws that targeted unemployed blacks, apprentice laws that made black orphans and dependents available for hire to whites, and commercial laws that excluded blacks from certain trades and businesses and restricted their ownership of property. Northern reaction to the laws helped produce Radical Reconstruction and passage of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, as well as creation of the Freedmen's Bureau. Many provisions of the black codes were reenacted in the Jim Crow laws and remained in force until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.




http://www.answers.com/topic/black-codes#ixzz1Ayjxow3c


----------



## Ernie S.

Truthmatters said:


> so you think only black women have abortions?



No but they are 3 times more likely. You would know that if you were able to comprehend simple English, Linda.


----------



## Ernie S.

rikules said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and the ACLU have been the best friends of blacks
> 
> CONSERVATIVES have worked very hard to deny them rights and equality
Click to expand...

How's that Kool Aid, huh?


----------



## Bones

Because obviously both the Republican and Democrat party have remained the same throughout the course of United States history.

Genius theory.


----------



## Tank

The Democrats have kept blacks inslaved today with handouts.


----------



## editec

It's surely not our great great grandfathers GOP, is it?

That once noble party is now (as are the Dems, I note) TOOLS of the insiders.


----------



## MajinLink

Back in the old days there were liberal, Conservative, and moderate wings of both parties. Racism was also a lot more powerful amongst the general public in the old days too. Finding old racist democrats is like finding boogers in your nose. However Democrats are now mostly liberal and Republicans mostly conservative. There's a reason why Democrats get the black vote


----------



## Revere

You can't get more racist than what the Great Society did to the nuclear African-American family.


----------



## uscitizen

Umm the Republican party is not at all what it started out to be and neither is the Democratic patry either.


----------



## Jroc

One of the liberal Democrat allies...The militant environmental movement is also partly responsible for millions of dead Black Africans...   


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR-LIYeTFGI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR-LIYeTFGI[/ame]


----------



## Tank

White liberals think their the best parents for blacks


----------



## Cuyo

Fitting that this thread is situated in the "History" forum.


----------



## Jroc

Cuyo said:


> Fitting that this thread is situated in the "History" forum.




Yeah? Hopefully one day this will be history...




> The killing of 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.


----------



## Cuyo

Jroc said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitting that this thread is situated in the "History" forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Hopefully one day this will be history...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


mmmmmmmmmmm-hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Safe to say then, that you would describe yourself as pro-life.  Got it.

When the evil libruls start *requiring* abortions, let me know.  Until then, I'm afraid you're full of shit.


----------



## rikules

Jroc said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and the ACLU have been the best friends of blacks
> 
> CONSERVATIVES have worked very hard to deny them rights and equality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give you facts you give me nothing. Sorry doesn't work with me....try again
Click to expand...



sigh...

I gave you facts
you gave us a lot of spin meant to HIDE THE REALITY that CONSERVATIVES OPPOSED equality/rights/freedom for blacks

it is true that LIBERAL REPUBLICANS helped fight for rights for blacks....
at one time.....long ago

the FACTS ALSO ARE
that GENERIC LIBERALS, DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS, THE ACLU (guys you hate) ALSO WORKED, FOUGHT (and DIED/WERE MURDERED by SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES in their work to help blacks


today conservatives STILL show SOME racism;

with racist remarks directed at obama and his family

by insisting that
a. blacks don't work
blacks are all on welfare
blacks are LUCKY they were enslaved so that they ended up in welfare in America
blacks are VIOLENT
blacks are CRIMINALS
blacks are STUPIDer than whites

so...
yes....you are right....LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS helped to fight for rights/equality and freedom for blacks

and I am ALSO right
conservatives did NOT



there was this cartoon ....
(you'll appreciate this)

there are some white conservatives outside a church getting ready to march against liberals


they have signs saying "liberals are anti-god"
and "liberals are an abomination in the eyes of the lord"


a couple of black conservatives approach them and say...."we hate liberals TOO! can we march with you...."


and the white guys say...."sure...go into the basement of that church over there. You will 
find some old signs...but they will need to be repainted...."


so the black guys go into the basement of the old church

and they find the signs....


that are obviously from the 60's

cus they say..."segregation is against god"
and "nigg-rs are an abomination in the eyes of the lord"


----------



## Jroc

rikules said:


> I gave you facts
> you gave us a lot of spin meant to HIDE THE REALITY that CONSERVATIVES OPPOSED equality/rights/freedom for blacks
> 
> it is true that LIBERAL REPUBLICANS helped fight for rights for blacks....
> at one time.....long ago
> 
> the FACTS ALSO ARE
> that GENERIC LIBERALS, DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS, THE ACLU (guys you hate) ALSO WORKED, FOUGHT (and DIED/WERE MURDERED by SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES in their work to help blacks
> 
> 
> today conservatives STILL show SOME racism;
> 
> with racist remarks directed at obama and his family
> 
> by insisting that
> a. blacks don't work
> blacks are all on welfare
> blacks are LUCKY they were enslaved so that they ended up in welfare in America
> blacks are VIOLENT
> blacks are CRIMINALS
> blacks are STUPIDer than whites
> 
> so...
> yes....you are right....LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS helped to fight for rights/equality and freedom for blacks
> 
> and I am ALSO right
> conservatives did NOT
> 
> 
> 
> there was this cartoon ....
> (you'll appreciate this)
> 
> there are some white conservatives outside a church getting ready to march against liberals
> 
> 
> they have signs saying "liberals are anti-god"
> and "liberals are an abomination in the eyes of the lord"
> 
> 
> a couple of black conservatives approach them and say...."we hate liberals TOO! can we march with you...."
> 
> 
> and the white guys say...."sure...go into the basement of that church over there. You will
> find some old signs...but they will need to be repainted...."
> 
> 
> so the black guys go into the basement of the old church
> 
> and they find the signs....
> 
> 
> that are obviously from the 60's
> 
> cus they say..."segregation is against god"
> and "nigg-rs are an abomination in the eyes of the lord"




Gibberish... anecdotal bullshit, Anyway the thread is on which party has been better for African Americans, that would be the Republican party. Like I said, give me  facts as you see them, then back um up with some evidence. What you just posted is meaningless without facts to back it up. My posts are fact based, and as of yet no one has refuted any of them. I&#8217;m inviting you or anyone else to try, but let&#8217;s deal in facts only please.


----------



## Rousseau

You would have to have a very elementary, almost childlike view of American politics to think that the Republican party of the 19th century Civil War era is anything like the GOP of the 21st century.

During the Civil War era (from which most of your bullet points are from), Republicans were the progressive liberals (called modernists and ex-whigs and abolitionists) and the Democratic party (the oldest political party in the U.S.) were more conservative.  Republicans back then had almost a socialist approach to economic policy, they passed "free land" legislation which made it so big business farmers didn't have a monopoly over land and independent farmers in an area.  They expanded federal government and it's roles, believed power should be more centrist (basically the opposite of a modern Conservative). Very progressive stuff for the 1800s.

It is also worth noting that the Democratic party was split into Southern and Northern Democratic parties at the time.

Based on his political policies and views on everything from economic policies to social policies Abraham Lincoln would probably not be a Republican today.  This is something anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history of the political parties and Lincoln's political policy would know. Very basic stuff here folks, come on.


----------



## editec

The only GOP or DEMs that matter now is the ones we have now.

What difference does it make what national parties USED TO BE?

Neither of them is a shadow of their former selves.

Both parties have completely different agendas than they once had.


----------



## Jroc

Rousseau said:


> During the Civil War era (from which most of your bullet points are from), Republicans were the progressive liberals (called modernists and ex-whigs and abolitionists) and the Democratic party (the oldest political party in the U.S.) were more conservative.  Republicans back then had almost a socialist approach to economic policy, they passed "free land" legislation which made it so big business farmers didn't have a monopoly over land and independent farmers in an area.  They expanded federal government and it's roles, believed power should be more centrist (basically the opposite of a modern Conservative). Very progressive stuff for the 1800s


.

I don't see how giving people the opportunity to own a piece of land if they settled it, worked it, and made it their own, to which the purpose was to expand the country into unsettled areas would be considered liberal.  I think a more liberal view would be to have everyone as a group working the land and then distribute it equally among them no matter how much each individual person contributed to that goal. 



> Based on his political policies and views on everything from economic policies to social policies Abraham Lincoln would probably not be a Republican today.  This is something anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history of the political parties and Lincoln's political policy would know. Very basic stuff here folks, come on



Very basic stuff? What does the conservative movement stand for? Smaller government and individual liberties, which is the opposite of slavery. Of course Lincoln had to do a lot of things in order to save the union at the time, but the core premise of conservatism is FREEDOM from a tyrannical government. and thats very basic stuff.


----------



## California Girl

BlackAsCoal said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
Click to expand...


Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it. 

Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true. 

Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining. 

I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.


----------



## Rousseau

Jroc said:


> I don't see how giving people the opportunity to own a piece of land if they settled it, worked it, and made it their own, to which the purpose was to expand the country into unsettled areas would be considered liberal.  I think a more liberal view would be to have everyone as a group working the land and then distribute it equally among them no matter how much each individual person contributed to that goal.



Wow. It's obvious you're confusing the Homestead Act with what I mentioned... the "free land" legislation that the first Republicans proposed is legislation where the government could CONFISCATE farm land from a major business and disperse it to smaller independent farmers in the area in order to diffuse a monopoly.

So no, you are entirely wrong and obviously confused about your American history.



Jroc said:


> Very basic stuff? What does the conservative movement stand for? Smaller government and individual liberties, which is the opposite of slavery. Of course Lincoln had to do a lot of things in order to save the union at the time, but the core premise of conservatism is FREEDOM from a tyrannical government. and thats very basic stuff.


Every view you just stated is almost identical to the Pro-Slavery argument and talking points of the time. 

Especially these:
"FREEDOM from a tyrannical government"
"Smaller government and individual liberties"

To them the government was an imposing tyrannical force imposing on their personal "liberty" to do business and keep slaves.  Keep in mind, in the South's view at the time, slaves were not viewed as "people" who could have "liberties". The Republicans on the other hand sought to expand government, centralize power and regulate a massive business and trade while taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government.  It isn't a huge secret that the first Republicans were progressive abolitionists up against conservatives.

Come on kid, if you're going to attempt to comment on the subject of political policy in the 1860s at least READ about it first.


----------



## Publius1787

Rousseau said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how giving people the opportunity to own a piece of land if they settled it, worked it, and made it their own, to which the purpose was to expand the country into unsettled areas would be considered liberal.  I think a more liberal view would be to have everyone as a group working the land and then distribute it equally among them no matter how much each individual person contributed to that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. It's obvious you're confusing the Homestead Act with what I mentioned... the "free land" legislation that the first Republicans proposed is legislation where the government could CONFISCATE farm land from a major business and disperse it to smaller independent farmers in the area in order to diffuse a monopoly.
> 
> So no, you are entirely wrong and obviously confused about your American history.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very basic stuff? What does the conservative movement stand for? Smaller government and individual liberties, which is the opposite of slavery. Of course Lincoln had to do a lot of things in order to save the union at the time, but the core premise of conservatism is FREEDOM from a tyrannical government. and thats very basic stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every view you just stated is almost identical to the Pro-Slavery argument and talking points of the time.
> 
> Especially these:
> "FREEDOM from a tyrannical government"
> "Smaller government and individual liberties"
> 
> To them the government was an imposing tyrannical force imposing on their personal "liberty" to do business and keep slaves.  Keep in mind, in the South's view at the time, slaves were not viewed as "people" who could have "liberties". The Republicans on the other hand sought to expand government, centralize power and regulate a massive business and trade while taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government.  It isn't a huge secret that the first Republicans were progressive abolitionists up against conservatives.
> 
> Come on kid, if you're going to attempt to comment on the subject of political policy in the 1860s at least READ about it first.
Click to expand...


I saw your name and avatar and hope you understand that Rousseau is wildy considered by socialist and communist as an inspiration for their philosophy. Karl Marx certainly thought so. So as far as the definition of modern day conservative you could say that the name and avar is a fail. Depending on who you talk to. Though the founders certainly read his work, Cicero and Locke were larger influences.


----------



## Publius1787

MajinLink said:


> Back in the old days there were liberal, Conservative, and moderate wings of both parties. Racism was also a lot more powerful amongst the general public in the old days too. Finding old racist democrats is like finding boogers in your nose. However Democrats are now mostly liberal and Republicans mostly conservative. There's a reason why Democrats get the black vote



Yeah. Its called unconstitutional preferintial policys on the bacis of race in exchange for votes.


----------



## Rousseau

Publius1787 said:


> Rousseau said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how giving people the opportunity to own a piece of land if they settled it, worked it, and made it their own, to which the purpose was to expand the country into unsettled areas would be considered liberal.  I think a more liberal view would be to have everyone as a group working the land and then distribute it equally among them no matter how much each individual person contributed to that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. It's obvious you're confusing the Homestead Act with what I mentioned... the "free land" legislation that the first Republicans proposed is legislation where the government could CONFISCATE farm land from a major business and disperse it to smaller independent farmers in the area in order to diffuse a monopoly.
> 
> So no, you are entirely wrong and obviously confused about your American history.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very basic stuff? What does the conservative movement stand for? Smaller government and individual liberties, which is the opposite of slavery. Of course Lincoln had to do a lot of things in order to save the union at the time, but the core premise of conservatism is FREEDOM from a tyrannical government. and thats very basic stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every view you just stated is almost identical to the Pro-Slavery argument and talking points of the time.
> 
> Especially these:
> "FREEDOM from a tyrannical government"
> "Smaller government and individual liberties"
> 
> To them the government was an imposing tyrannical force imposing on their personal "liberty" to do business and keep slaves.  Keep in mind, in the South's view at the time, slaves were not viewed as "people" who could have "liberties". The Republicans on the other hand sought to expand government, centralize power and regulate a massive business and trade while taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government.  It isn't a huge secret that the first Republicans were progressive abolitionists up against conservatives.
> 
> Come on kid, if you're going to attempt to comment on the subject of political policy in the 1860s at least READ about it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw your name and avatar and hope you understand that Rousseau is wildy considered by socialist and communist as an inspiration for their philosophy. Karl Marx certainly thought so. So as far as the definition of modern day conservative you could say that the name and avar is a fail. Depending on who you talk to. Though the founders certainly read his work, Cicero and Locke were larger influences.
Click to expand...


FINALLY! You have no idea how excited I am... Sorry I can't help myself but you have no idea what you just set yourself up for...

Rousseau was also wildly considered by our founder fathers to be a huge influence for their philosophy.  Social Contract anyone? But you already know this (and like you mentioned, Locke was a greater influence)... so moving on...

Okay now the good part:

Speaking of Marxism and modern Conservatism, did you know that the founders of the NEOCONSERVATIVE movement were all self-proclaimed Marxists? Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and the rest of the New York Intellectuals (founders of the NeoCon movement) were self-proclaimed Marxists who differed from the rest of the left-wing socialist movement in that they were anti-Stalinist, anti-Communist and pro-war. However, they identified with the Right-wing's foreign and global economic policies at the time.  Look it up.

Do you know which undercurrent political ideology took to the forefront of Right-wing politics after 9/11 and dominated Right-wing agenda and foreign relations during the Bush administration? Thats right, NEOCONSERVATISM.  Which in part may explain why Bush raised Welfare spending 32% from the previous Clinton administration and overall federal spending 55%.  Thats right, a Republican allocated more federal money to welfare than a Democrat, welcome to the 21st century.

[It is also worth noting that, contrary to what I've seen many confused people on this board state, Marxism is not synonymous with Communism or Socialism, it is a political ideology based on socialism, yes, but it is entirely separate from Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism etc.  Take for example Irving Kristol and the New York Intellectuals who were self-proclaimed Marxists but anti-Stalinist and anti-Communist]

THANK YOU for setting that one up, your misconception of "modern Conservative" is a fail.  My name, title and avar wins.


----------



## Jroc

> Especially these:
> "FREEDOM from a tyrannical government"
> "Smaller government and individual liberties"
> 
> To them the government was an imposing tyrannical force imposing on their personal "liberty" to do business and keep slaves. Keep in mind, in the South's view at the time, slaves were not viewed as "people" who could have "liberties". The Republicans on the other hand sought to expand government, centralize power and regulate a massive business and trade while taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government. It isn't a huge secret that the first Republicans were progressive abolitionists up against conservatives.



Really so is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the  Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights? all these are quotes from Lincoln are they liberal? Progressive? I don't think so



> As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.


 
Abraham Lincoln



> Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.


Abraham Lincoln



> Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.


Abraham Lincoln



> Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.


Abraham Lincoln




> We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution


.

Abraham Lincoln



> Originally Posted by Rousseau
> 
> Speaking of Marxism and modern Conservatism, did you know that the founders of the NEOCONSERVATIVE movement were all self-proclaimed Marxists? Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and the rest of the New York Intellectuals (founders of the NeoCon movement) were self-proclaimed Marxists who differed from the rest of the left-wing socialist movement in that they were anti-Stalinist, anti-Communist and pro-war. However, they identified with the Right-wing's foreign and global economic policies at the time. Look it up




Now were getting into loonyville Kristal and Podhoretz did not come up with that label "neocon" it is true they were Marxists, socialist just like the rest of the stupid 60s radicals that are in the White House today (Obama is a student of these people) but they realized socialism was the wrong way to go, in turn they were given that label by their former friends. Those are liberal talking points.. your true self has surfaced. as far as you're other bull it was the Republican congress that gave us "Welfare Reform" not Bill Clinton


----------



## Rousseau

Jroc said:


> Now were getting into loonyville Kristal and Podhoretz did not come up with that label "neocon" it is true they were Marxists, socialist just like the rest of the stupid 60s radicals that are in the White House today (Obama is a student of these people) but they realized socialism was the wrong way to go, in turn they were given that label by their former friends. Those are liberal talking points.. your true self has surfaced. as far as you're other bull it was the Republican congress that gave us "Welfare Reform" not Bill Clinton



Do you have any idea what you are talking about? DO you know anything about Neoconservatism? I suggest you read about the subject before attempting to comment.

Kristol (not Kristal) is considered the FOUNDER of Neoconservatism.  While Podhoretz was the first to call himself a NeoCon, the rest of them eventually adopted the term in their writing.  Either you know that you are lying or you're confused, but anyone who has read even a brief description or piece of literature on Neoconservatism knows this.  Irving Kristol is the FOUNDER of Neoconservatism, it takes a 5 second wikipedia search to see that, come on.

What are the main tenets of Neoconservatism?

Aggressive foreign policy
presence of a Welfare state
Rhetorically supportive of free market but willing to interfere for social purposes
Pragmatic approach to economics with traditional approach to culture and social issues

[Side Note: Does that sound familiar?  Very similar to Modern European Conservativism, they are almost identical in that they are conservative when it comes to social issues and economic and foreign policy but they believe a Welfare state is necessary.]

That's what Neoconservatism is, theres no way you're going to come in and try to change the very definition of a political ideology.  These are not liberal talking points, this is what Neoconservatism is. You need to read your shit before you post.

I know it's hard to handle when I just introduced a 3rd dimension to your two-dimensional, linear view of politics (maybe too complex for you?).  When I first began reading literature on Neoconservatism I was surprised at first as well, I find it to be the most peculiar political ideology of our time.  

BTW I can't help but notice the Israeli flag in your signature, if you are conservative and Jewish then Neoconservatism should appeal to you. Why? Let me explain... the New York Intellectuals (the group responsible for founding the NeoCon movement including Kristol, Podhoretz etc.) were all Jewish.  Some have accused the Neoconservatives of supporting an aggressive Middle Eastern foreign policy in support of an Israeli agenda.  This is no secret, in Kristol's writing he always advocated that it is in U.S. interest to aggressively support Israel's middle eastern affairs.  And well, obviously it is in the U.S.'s interest as well.

Now moving on to the other part of your post (I didn't want to take away from the Neocon stuff, cuz it is a subject I feel too many people know little about, obviously I feel passionately about it)

Interesting that you used quotes from Lincoln as example while I used actual political policies (which you ignored BTW).  Actions speak louder than words.  I think your problem here is that you're attempting to compare conservative ideology today (which is not a constant) with political ideology of the 1860s, it's apples to oranges.  It's apparent you suffer from an overly simplified, 2-dimensional, linear view of politics.


----------



## Jroc

> Do you have any idea what you are talking about? DO you know anything about Neoconservatism? I suggest you read about the subject before attempting to comment.



Look why don't you start a thread on neo consrevatism, it is not the subject of this thread. I'm not going to let you hijack this thread, now back to thhe subject.



Rousseau said:


> Interesting that you used quotes from Lincoln as example while I used actual political policies (which you ignored BTW).  Actions speak louder than words.  I think your problem here is that you're attempting to compare conservative ideology today (which is not a constant) with political ideology of the 1860s, it's apples to oranges.  It's apparent you suffer from an overly simplified, 2-dimensional, linear view of politics.



I'll be back to take care of this later


----------



## Rousseau

Jroc said:


> Do you have any idea what you are talking about? DO you know anything about Neoconservatism? I suggest you read about the subject before attempting to comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look why don't you start a thread on neo consrevatism, it is not the subject of this thread. I'm not going to let you hijack this thread, now back to thhe subject.
Click to expand...


Hilarious! You attempted to comment on my post (which was directed at someone else, not you) and when I reply, correcting you on Neoconservatism, you claim I'm hijacking your thread!  You attempted to comment to me directly on the subject, so I replied.

Being Jewish and Conservative yourself, it's something I'd expect you to know more about... if you actually had any real interest in politics.



Jroc said:


> Rousseau said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you used quotes from Lincoln as example while I used actual political policies (which you ignored BTW).  Actions speak louder than words.  I think your problem here is that you're attempting to compare conservative ideology today (which is not a constant) with political ideology of the 1860s, it's apples to oranges.  It's apparent you suffer from an overly simplified, 2-dimensional, linear view of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be back to take care of this later
Click to expand...

It's okay to admit you're wrong... a wise man knows when to say "I don't know".


----------



## Defiant1

Martin Luther King was a Republican.

NBRA


----------



## JBeukema

Jroc said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
Click to expand...


1) learn what genocide is

2)


----------



## JBeukema

Both parties have manipulated various demographics when politically expedient.

Anyone who claims either party is inherently better than the other is, by definition, a mentally retarded partisan hack.


----------



## JBeukema

Wait... 'retarded partisan hack' is redundant, aint it?


----------



## JBeukema

Jroc said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you think only black women have abortions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion rate per live births is 4 times higher amoung blacks then Caucassions.
Click to expand...

Huh?

What are Caucassions?


----------



## rdean

California Girl said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it.
> 
> Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true.
> 
> Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining.
> 
> I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.
Click to expand...


Not true????

The Republican Party is 90% white.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tell me when you are twisting facts to fit the philosophy, and when you are making philosophy fit the facts, jroc.

The GOP did yeoman service under the direction of President Johnson and help of the GOP Senate Minority leader.  The votes were based on geography: all Democrats and most GOP from the North and West voted positive, while all GOP and overwhelmingly Democrats voted against it from the South.


----------



## Ras Al Ghul

What is the purpose of this thread?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc is trying to distort history.  We call it jrockian revisionism.


----------



## JBeukema

Basically, the OP is Rdeaning


----------



## JakeStarkey

From the get go jroc is revising history.  The GOP was formed to not end slavery but ensure that slavery did not impair economic opportunity for the white man.  Jroc may be making the classic error of mistaking anti-slavery opposition for abolition: two different beasts.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> From the get go jroc is revising history.  The GOP was formed to not end slavery but ensure that slavery did not impair economic opportunity for the white man.  Jroc may be making the classic error of mistaking anti-slavery opposition for abolition: two different beasts.




Republican Party National Platform, 1860


----------



## rdean

"Driving Miss Nancy" Rush Limbaugh On Dems' Racism (Videos) - Congressman Steny Hoyer - Zimbio






?Obama Bucks?: Caricatures of Barack Obama  Sociological Images

It is a &#8220;joke&#8221; included in the &#8220;October newsletter by the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated&#8221; (I read more about it here; the group is from San Bernardino, CA), in which they claim that if Obama wins, his face will be on food stamps, not dollar bills. From a story in The Press-Enterprise:

Fedele [the group's president] said she got the illustration in a number of chain e-mails and decided to reprint it for her members in the Trumpeter newsletter because she was offended that Obama would draw attention to his own race. She declined to say who sent her the e-mails with the illustration. She said she doesn&#8217;t think in racist terms, pointing out she once supported Republican Alan Keyes, an African-American who previously ran for president. &#8220;I didn&#8217;t see it the way that it&#8217;s being taken. I never connected,&#8221; she said. &#8220;It was just food to me. It didn&#8217;t mean anything else.&#8221;






This is how the right welcomes blacks.  It's also why the Republican Party is 90% white.


----------



## Jroc

JBeukema said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) learn what genocide is
> 
> 2)
Click to expand...


 What a joke you think we should abort babies because of the risk that some day they'd turn out to be criminals?...Thats the sign of a sick mind. My position is that there is no legal right to an abortion in the Constitution. States should be able to pass their own laws in regards to abortion, The federal government should not be using tax payer money to fund pro abortion groups like Planned Parenthood who profit off of these abortions.If you've read the entire thread you'd know the racist history of Planned Parenthood its founding and the fact that African Americans have four times the abortion of whites Margaret Sanger would be proud. It's a sad thing to watch how African American politicians ignore this fact simply because Planned Parenthood is an ally of the Democrat party.


----------



## Jroc

Rousseau said:


> :Interesting that you used quotes from Lincoln as example while I used actual political policies (which you ignored BTW).  Actions speak louder than words.  I think your problem here is that you're attempting to compare conservative ideology today (which is not a constant) with political ideology of the 1860s, it's apples to oranges.  It's apparent you suffer from an overly simplified, 2-dimensional, linear view of politics.




Conservative ideology is always constant. What is that constant? Individual liberty.. the whole premise of the founding. Individual liberty is the opposite of slavery. The liberal ideology is big government, which leads to tyrannical government, which leads to slavery.   


*The Great Frederick Douglass.. Former Slave, Abolitionist, Conservative (Constitutionalist) Republican *



> "base my sense of the certain overthrow of slavery, in part, upon the nature of the American Government, the Constitution, the tendencies of the age, and the character of the American people&#8230;. I know of no soil better adapted to the growth of reform than American soil. I know of no country where the conditions for affecting great changes in the settled order of things, for the development of right ideas of liberty and humanity, are more favorable than here in these United States&#8230;. The Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence, and the sentiments of the founders of the Republic, give us a plat-form broad enough, and strong enough, to support the most comprehensive plans for the freedom and elevation of all the people of this country, without regard to color, class, or clime"



Federick Douglass





> A new condition has brought new duties. A character which might pass without censure as a slave cannot so pass as a freeman. We must not beg men to do for us what we ought to do for ourselves. The prostrate form, the uncovered head, the cringing attitude, the bated breath, the suppliant, outstretched hand of beggary does not become an American freeman, and does not become us as a class, and we will not consent to be any longer represented in that position. No people can make desirable progress or have permanent welfare outside of their own independent and earnest efforts&#8230;. We utterly repudiate all invidious distinctions, whether in our favor or against us, and ask only for a fair field and no favor



Frederick Douglass


----------



## JBeukema

Jroc said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) learn what genocide is
> 
> 2)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a joke you think we should abort babies because of the risk that some day they'd turn out to be criminals?...
Click to expand...


Do cite



> My position is that there is no legal right to an abortion in the Constitution.



Scotus disagrees. Then, of course, there's the Ninth Amendment.





> States should be able to pass their own laws in regards to abortion



We tried that. See: Roe v. Wade





> , The federal government should not be using tax payer money to fund pro abortion groups like Planned Parenthood who profit off of these abortions



As opposed to profiting off killing brown people around the world? 





> .If you've read the entire thread you'd know the racist history of Planned Parenthood its founding


I know about it. It's an ad home that does nothing to demonstrate why abortions should be criminalized.





> and the fact that African Americans have four times the abortion of whites



And? What's your point?


----------



## JBeukema

There's  o such thing as 'conservative ideology'. Conservatism is no ideology; it is, by definition, nothing more or less than a desire to preserve the _status quo _or return to the _status quo ante_.

Slaveholders were, by definition, the conservatives.

So, too, the rioting police at the DNC .


So, too, the Tories. And the KKK.


----------



## Rousseau

Jroc said:


> Rousseau said:
> 
> 
> 
> :Interesting that you used quotes from Lincoln as example while I used actual political policies (which you ignored BTW).  Actions speak louder than words.  I think your problem here is that you're attempting to compare conservative ideology today (which is not a constant) with political ideology of the 1860s, it's apples to oranges.  It's apparent you suffer from an overly simplified, 2-dimensional, linear view of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative ideology is always constant. What is that constant? Individual liberty.. the whole premise of the founding. Individual liberty is the opposite of slavery. The liberal ideology is big government, which leads to tyrannical government, which leads to slavery.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about do you?  You are completely unable to discuss political policies, it's like a fucking handicap.  I mentioned examples of political policies of the first Republicans, which you completely ignored.  I gave you an in depth example of a modern conservative ideology in hopes of broadening your two-dimensional, linear view of politics.  All of which you ignored, did you read a word of my posts?  

Let me break this down...



Jroc said:


> Conservative ideology is always constant.



Nope, go back to square one, you need to retake American Government and U.S. History.  This is an idiotic statement that I would expect from an ignorant high school student, not someone who claims to be conservative or interested the least bit in politics.  You fail American politics.

There is paleoconservatism, social conservatism, neoconservatism, fiscal conservatism.... and... I know this next one is going to confuse the shit out of you given your very basic, childlike view of politics... *classical liberalism*.

*"Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."*

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*"Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism and progressivism."*

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do I need to educate you further? I will not keep replying if you continue to completely ignore my posts correcting you.  If you fail to actually read my posts again, then I'm sorry, I can't help you.



Jroc said:


> What is that constant? Individual liberty.. the whole premise of the founding. Individual liberty is the opposite of slavery. The liberal ideology is big government, which leads to tyrannical government, which leads to slavery.



Now this is interesting... you've basically taken about a dozen completely different political ideologies from different time periods, lumped them into one and redefined them with a totally new, overly simplified definition that you came up with off the top of your head.  The last sentence was just plain idiotic.  I'm beginning to wonder why you're even on this message board when it's obvious you don't know anything about the very political ideology you think you identify with.




Jroc said:


> *The Great Frederick Douglass.. Former Slave, Abolitionist, Conservative (Constitutionalist) Republican *



You're making me cringe here... mostly because it's obvious you don't understand what you're saying, and I'm almost embarrassed for you. Frederick Douglass has never, EVER, been referred to as a Conservative... or a Constitutionalist... YOU just gave him that label.  And I think it's not because you mean to mislabel him, but because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Every political party and movement in the 1860s claimed to uphold the Constitution... it was still less than a century old and held the most merit in American politics at the time.

I don't blame you for not understanding... but please if you want to comment on a subject at least do research before you go making up random shit and throwing out claims straight from the Jroc fantasy factory.  And read my entire fucking posts before you attempt reply again, it's getting annoying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> Rousseau said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how giving people the opportunity to own a piece of land if they settled it, worked it, and made it their own, to which the purpose was to expand the country into unsettled areas would be considered liberal.  I think a more liberal view would be to have everyone as a group working the land and then distribute it equally among them no matter how much each individual person contributed to that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. It's obvious you're confusing the Homestead Act with what I mentioned... the "free land" legislation that the first Republicans proposed is legislation where the government could CONFISCATE farm land from a major business and disperse it to smaller independent farmers in the area in order to diffuse a monopoly.
> 
> So no, you are entirely wrong and obviously confused about your American history.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very basic stuff? What does the conservative movement stand for? Smaller government and individual liberties, which is the opposite of slavery. Of course Lincoln had to do a lot of things in order to save the union at the time, but the core premise of conservatism is FREEDOM from a tyrannical government. and thats very basic stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every view you just stated is almost identical to the Pro-Slavery argument and talking points of the time.
> 
> Especially these:
> "FREEDOM from a tyrannical government"
> "Smaller government and individual liberties"
> 
> To them the government was an imposing tyrannical force imposing on their personal "liberty" to do business and keep slaves.  Keep in mind, in the South's view at the time, slaves were not viewed as "people" who could have "liberties". The Republicans on the other hand sought to expand government, centralize power and regulate a massive business and trade while taking power from the states and giving it to the federal government.  It isn't a huge secret that the first Republicans were progressive abolitionists up against conservatives.
> 
> Come on kid, if you're going to attempt to comment on the subject of political policy in the 1860s at least READ about it first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw your name and avatar and hope you understand that Rousseau is wildy considered by socialist and communist as an inspiration for their philosophy. Karl Marx certainly thought so. So as far as the definition of modern day conservative you could say that the name and avar is a fail. Depending on who you talk to. Though the founders certainly read his work, Cicero and Locke were larger influences.
Click to expand...


Publius1787 imitates stupidity, making the same silly links from figures of history, such as Rosseau and others, as to only leftists.  This is not so, and it is stupid to think it is so.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Frederick Douglass would have slapped Publius1787 silly (metaphorically  of course) for suggesting FD was ever a conservative.  And P1787 suggest Lincoln was a rubbish conservative of the Tea Party right, he should be schooled with a ruler (metaphorically  of course).

P1787 is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions.  However, he is not entitled to his own reality and does not get to change historical definitions and facts.


----------



## Jroc

> Nope, go back to square one, you need to retake American Government and U.S. History.  This is an idiotic statement that I would expect from an ignorant high school student, not someone who claims to be conservative or interested the least bit in politics.  You fail American politics.
> 
> There is paleoconservatism, social conservatism, neoconservatism, fiscal conservatism.... and... I know this next one is going to confuse the shit out of you given your very basic, childlike view of politics... *classical liberalism*.



I know what classical liberalism is, which in pretty much the same as my view of conservatism, it sure the hell isnt in anyway related to todays liberal views 




> *"Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."*



Ok. So whats the problem? Like I said maybe you should start a thread on the history of conservatism in the United States. My views of conservatism are as I stated, limited government and individual liberties again whats the problem?





> *"Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism and progressivism."*



It would seem to me that classical liberalism and progressivism would be opposites unless these progressive democrats todays Liberals implement their views through the constitutional process which is defiantly not what these liberal Democrats are doing. Regardless, this thread was intended to show that the Republican Party has always been a traditional ally of African Americans they still are in my view.   




> quote=Jroc;3221008]
> What is that constant? Individual liberty.. the whole premise of the founding. Individual liberty is the opposite of slavery. The liberal ideology is big government, which leads to tyrannical government, which leads to slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence was just plain idiotic.  I'm beginning to wonder why you're even on this message board when it's obvious you don't know anything about the very political ideology you think you identify with.
Click to expand...


Ok.. Maybe I should have said todays  liberal Democrat ideology. Hows that?




> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Great Frederick Douglass.. Former Slave, Abolitionist, Conservative (Constitutionalist) Republican *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making me cringe here... mostly because it's obvious you don't understand what you're saying, and I'm almost embarrassed for you. Frederick Douglass has never, EVER, been referred to as a Conservative... or a Constitutionalist... YOU just gave him that label.  And I think it's not because you mean to mislabel him, but because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


So are you saying Frederick Douglass did not believe in the principals of our constitution? And the founding? If you do then youre clueless. I gave you one of his quotes were am I going wrong here? Educate me.


----------



## JBeukema

wait...


is pubes back, or is this a different idiot?


----------



## JBeukema

For the record 'Liberalism' =/= 'liberalism'

The former is an ideology- or spectrum of related ideologies. The latter is basically an adjective that's more accurately used as a suffix- such as 'fiscal liberalism' or 'social liberalism'. To say one is liberal is not the same as saying one is _a_ Liberal.

It's really not as difficult as some of you make it out to be.


----------



## Jroc

JBeukema said:


> For the record 'Liberalism' =/= 'liberalism'
> 
> The former is an ideology- or spectrum of related ideologies. The latter is basically an adjective that's more accurate used as a suffix- such as 'fiscal liberalism' or 'social liberalism'. To say one is liberal is not the same as saying one is _a_ Liberal.
> 
> It's really not as difficult as some of you make it out to be.



 Thank you for that usefull peice of totally irrelavent information.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the get go jroc is revising history.  The GOP was formed to not end slavery but ensure that slavery did not impair economic opportunity for the white man.  Jroc may be making the classic error of mistaking anti-slavery opposition for abolition: two different beasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican Party National Platform, 1860
Click to expand...


You post a document and that ends the discussion?  

"The Republican platform specifically pledged not to extend slavery and called for enactment of free-homestead legislation".  Now, grasshopper, note the implication and connection.  The GOP recognizes that slavery is constitutional but not in extension to the territories.  Why?  It threatens white economic opportunity.

Once again racist anti-slavery sentiment is not abolitionism.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Conservative ideology is always constant. What is that constant? Individual liberty.. the whole premise of the founding. Individual liberty is the opposite of slavery. The liberal ideology is big government, which leads to tyrannical government, which leads to slavery.



Thus, by your twist, Lincoln and Douglass are conservatives?  Where do you get the idea our friends on the liberal side do not supporty liberty?  You are nothing more than a wierd individual who tries to create his own reality by twisting time honored definitions and history.

Lissen up, wad:  Lincoln and Douglass, even more Douglass, were liberals for their time and place.  You better go study Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, Sumner in particular, before you suggest such an unsupportable idea: only conservatives support liberty?

What a moronic and unsupportable assertion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> wait...is pubes back, or is this a different idiot?



Not surprising.  Franklin Buchanan had his followers.  Aaron Burr had his followers.  Both Burr and Buchanan were conservatives of the worst sort.


----------



## Dante

another idiot on the right?

nuf said




Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *...



USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

Posted 7/14/2005 11:49 PM

GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.






		"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. 	
By Morry Gash, AP

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."


----------



## Rousseau

Jroc said:


> I know what classical liberalism is, which in pretty much the same as my view of conservatism, it sure the hell isn&#8217;t in anyway related to today&#8217;s liberal views



Exactly! You're catching on! Yes, classical liberalism is belief in free market, limited government etc.  I assumed it would confuse you because you seem to be so entrenched in a two-dimensional, Conservative vs. Liberal understanding of politics. Let's see if you can stay on track with this one...




Jroc said:


> *"Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."*
> 
> 
> 
> Ok&#8230;. So what&#8217;s the problem? Like I said maybe you should start a thread on the history of conservatism in the United States. My views of conservatism are as I stated, limited government and individual liberties again whats the problem?
Click to expand...


*snap* *snap*

Hey kid, over here! Have you already forgotten what were talking about?

You purported that the Republican party and conservatism is basically the same as it was 1860s.  It's taken me, what? Maybe 4 or 5 in-depth posts correcting your misconception and you're STILL ignoring it and going off-topic.

Okay that's great what you think personally and all, but your personal views on conservatism are completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.  What is relevant is the change in Conservative ideology and the Republican party since the 1860s.  

Remember your last post when you stated "Conservatism is a constant", I corrected you and you're ignoring it.






Jroc said:


> It would seem to me that classical liberalism and progressivism would be opposites unless these progressive democrats todays &#8220;Liberals&#8221; implement their views through the constitutional process which is defiantly not what these&#8221; liberal&#8221; Democrats are doing.



My god you are a trip, look, your short attention span has caused you to completely forget what you were talking about mid-sentence.



Jroc said:


> It would seem to me that classical liberalism and progressivism would be opposites



Nope, do I need to re-post? Did you just barely figure out what classical liberalism is?

"Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, *the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism, and progressivism."*

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you've learned anything from my posts, you should know politics is not a two-sided plane of Conservative vs. Liberal.  This is how ignorant people who don't understand the complexity of politics view everything, so stop it.  I showed you a modern Conservative ideology (Neoconservatism) which was originally influenced by Marxism.  I showed you how the Republican party has shifted ideologies since it's founding.  Do you understand?



Jroc said:


> Regardless, this thread was intended to show that the Republican Party has always been a traditional ally of African Americans they still are in my view.



That's nice, you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as you keep replying to me, I will keep bombarding you with facts.  If you don't want to risk having your view shaken, then don't make it public.

If you believe in all the things you have stated (and you specifically said classical liberalism) then the modern GOP is not YOUR ally, because like, the above quote... the Republican party HISTORICALLY advocated classical liberalism before it's ideological realignment in the mid-1960s.  You need to get beyond media sound-bites and talking points, and get some in-depth education in American politics.


Okay moving on, now for your great history lesson on Frederick Douglass (this is gonna be fun)...




Jroc said:


> Rousseau said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Great Frederick Douglass.. Former Slave, Abolitionist, Conservative (Constitutionalist) Republican *
> 
> 
> 
> You're making me cringe here... mostly because it's obvious you don't understand what you're saying, and I'm almost embarrassed for you. Frederick Douglass has never, EVER, been referred to as a Conservative... or a Constitutionalist... YOU just gave him that label.  And I think it's not because you mean to mislabel him, but because you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying Frederick Douglass did not believe in the principals of our constitution? And the founding? If you do then you&#8217;re clueless. I gave you one of his quotes were am I going wrong here? Educate me.
Click to expand...


Everyone interprets the document differently, even Douglass himself at one point considered the Constitution to be pro-slavery and rejected the document (he and William Lloyd Garrison were abolitionists who thought Constitution to be an evil document, referring to the Three-fifths compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution).

"Douglass eventually came to agree with Smith and Lysander Spooner that the United States Constitution was an anti-slavery document. *This reversed his earlier agreement with William Lloyd Garrison that it was pro-slavery.* Garrison had publicly expressed his opinion by burning copies of the Constitution."

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be completely honest, the Constitution was in favor of the Southern states at the time because of the Three-fifths compromise.

"The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Constitution Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman."

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hence, why Douglass and other abolitionists originally rejected the Constitution, then backlashed with their own different interpretation, differing from that of the pro-Slavery advocates.  This was part of the political battle at the time, was who could interpret the Constitution to better fit their views.

My point being, you mislabeled Frederick Douglass, not because you meant to but because you don't understand what you are talking about and are attempting to use simple-minded inaccurate labels. I'm getting kind of sick of having to teach American history to you.


----------



## California Girl

rdean said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it.
> 
> Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true.
> 
> Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining.
> 
> I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true????
> 
> The Republican Party is 90% white.
Click to expand...


You're 94% stupid.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



You seem to be confusing the past with the present.

Today's Republicans don't get credit for what Republicans of yesteryear, yester-decade, or yester-century did,

any more than I get credit for being a WWII veteran because my father was.

This asinine myth gets run in every few months on every political msg board, and it never gets any less retarded.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Every Southern Republican in Congress voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Why do you suppose that was?


----------



## rdean

California Girl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it.
> 
> Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true.
> 
> Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining.
> 
> I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true????
> 
> The Republican Party is 90% white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're 94% stupid.
Click to expand...


You mean the Republican Party ISN'T 90% white?


----------



## Tank

rdean said:


> The Republican Party is 90% white.


So are scientists


----------



## Jroc

Rousseau said:


> You purported that the Republican party and conservatism is basically the same as it was 1860s.  It's taken me, what? Maybe 4 or 5 in-depth posts correcting your misconception and you're STILL ignoring it and going off-topic.
> 
> Okay that's great what you think personally and all, but your personal views on conservatism are completely irrelevant to what we are talking about.  What is relevant is the change in Conservative ideology and the Republican party since the 1860s.



Not really... the point was Lincoln's and Frederick Douglass's views (not in his early years) were closer to today&#8217;s conservatives then what you propose, the simple fact that individual liberties are the bedrock of today&#8217;s conservative movement, which are constitutional principals, These principles would have never allowed Slavery to endure whether you want to acknowledge it or not,  labels change but the principles do not. When Lincoln said he&#8217;s a conservative, I take it that he knows what he&#8217;s talking about. Damn!... I can&#8217;t find the quote I want. oh well.    








> Nope, do I need to re-post? Did you just barely figure out what classical liberalism is?
> 
> "Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, *the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism, and progressivism."*
> 
> 
> If you've learned anything from my posts, you should know politics is not a two-sided plane of Conservative vs. Liberal.  This is how ignorant people who don't understand the complexity of politics view everything, so stop it.  I showed you a modern Conservative ideology (Neoconservatism) which was originally influenced by Marxism.  I showed you how the Republican party has shifted ideologies since it's founding.  Do you understand?



The problem with you and people like you is you want to cloud the issue, deflecting the &#8220;conservative&#8221; cause with.. this history... that history.. conservatives were progressive.. Conservatives were liberals.. Classic liberalism.. and progressives.. blah.. blah&#8230;blah..It&#8217;s all a smoke screen commonly used to confused people that don&#8217;t know any better, that crap doesn&#8217;t work with me. We all know what todays conservative movement stands for, and right now the Republican party is what we have to advance that movement. of course there are different factions in the party but we have to deal with them. 



> That's nice, you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as you keep replying to me, I will keep bombarding you with facts. If you don't want to risk having your view shaken, then don't make it public.



 You give yourself too much credit sir.



> If you believe in all the things you have stated (and you specifically said classical liberalism) then the modern GOP is not YOUR ally, because like, the above quote... the Republican Party HISTORICALLY advocated classical liberalism before it's ideological realignment in the mid-1960s.  You need to get beyond media sound-bites and talking points, and get some in-depth education in American politics.



Like I said the Republican party is what we have, and its moving in our direction, but thanks for you&#8217;re concern.





> Everyone interprets the document differently, even Douglass himself at one point considered the Constitution to be pro-slavery and rejected the document (he and William Lloyd Garrison were abolitionists who thought Constitution to be an evil document, referring to the Three-fifths compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution).
> 
> "Douglass eventually came to agree with Smith and Lysander Spooner that the United States Constitution was an anti-slavery document. *This reversed his earlier agreement with William Lloyd Garrison that it was pro-slavery.* Garrison had publicly expressed his opinion by burning copies of the Constitution."



Exactly!! which is why Douglass eventually split from and denounced Garrison&#8217;s views this is how he put it&#8230;



> to re-think the whole subject, and to study, with some care, not only the just and proper rules of legal interpretation, but the origin, design, nature, rights, powers, and duties of civil government.&#8221; This rethinking, he reported, brought about &#8220;a radical change in my opinions.&#8221; At the center of that change was a radical reappraisal of the American Founding


.

*Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom, in Autobiographies,*



> To be completely honest, the Constitution was in favor of the Southern states at the time because of the Three-fifths compromise.



Wrong the real purpose was to limit the power of the slave holding states.. I don't want to hear any crap about Beck, this video is a good lession for people who don't fully understand the purpose of the three-fifths clause...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

The 3/5ths clause was to give the South more representation in return for its agreement to tariff taxes.

Absolutely no credible evidence or analysis suggests that Lincoln or Douglass were conservatives by post-Reagan definitions.


----------



## rdean

Tank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party is 90% white.
> 
> 
> 
> So are scientists
Click to expand...


Yes, but scientists are only 6% Republican.  Why would anyone think the percentage would be "higher"?


----------



## Tank

rdean said:


> Yes, but scientists are only 6% Republican.


And the rest are independents.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The 3/5ths clause was to give the South more representation in return for its agreement to tariff taxes.



Ok.....I guess Federick Douglass didn't agree with you 



> Absolutely no credible evidence or analysis suggests that Lincoln or Douglass were conservatives by post-Reagan definitions.



You mean by By your definition? Humm... I guess there are others that agree with me 







Abraham Lincolns firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).

Those who actually study Lincolns thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. He loved and admired the sentiments of those old-time men, our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles  equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.
Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by todays Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position. He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a living and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition. In a free society, a citizen can look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.

Lincoln?s Conservative Vision | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.

Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.

The OP failed a long time ago.


----------



## Douger

Are you referring to people with dual citizenship or murkin citizens who were born in Africa ?


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.
> 
> Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.
> 
> The OP failed a long time ago.



This coming from a person who doesn't even understand the reason for the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. So far all we've gotten from you is quick it and run statements, Frederick Douglass wouldnt have talked to me? Please....If you knew anything about him you'd know he spoke to people who agreed and disagreed with him so you're statement just affirms how clueless you really are.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> another idiot on the right?
> 
> nuf said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
> 
> Posted 7/14/2005 11:49 PM
> 
> GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
> By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
> Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
> By Morry Gash, AP
> 
> "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you quote from other far right nutters.  Real Republicans or libertarian flirters such as John Boehner would never support your contention while Ron and Rand Paul would hoot.

Keep posting.  Your fun.  Oh, ignoring history and definitions and facts makes life easier for you, I know.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Recounting the history of a LONG DEAD Republican Party does not make republicans any friend of African-Americans today. Today's Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self.

Note to the wise, friends don't have to declare themselves as your best friend. That is decided by the other party, not you.

The rush to pretend "friendship" with a people the right has spent hundreds of years attacking is all based on the reality that white America is shrinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship or understanding. Not even remotely.

Is the right prepared to stop attacking our heroes and champions who put their lives on the line for the struggle for equality?

NO, they are not.

Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for humdreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?

NO, they are not.

Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?

NO, HELL NO, they are not.

Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."

Nobody is buying it.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.
> 
> Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.
> 
> The OP failed a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from a person who doesn't even understand the reason for the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. So far all we've gotten from you is quick it and run statements, Frederick Douglass wouldnt have talked to me? Please....If you knew anything about him you'd know he spoke to people who agreed and disagreed with him so you're statement just affirms how clueless you really are.
Click to expand...


I know Douglass very well and he would find no affinity with you .. neither would W.E.B Dubois. Your best bet would have been to talk to Booker T Washington .. who was lost and desperately searching for an answer .. any answer.


----------



## Jroc

BlackAsCoal said:


> Recounting the history of a LONG DEAD Republican Party does not make republicans any friend of African-Americans today. Today's Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self



It may not be quite the party it used to be, and there are plenty of people in the party that I disagree with, but as compared to the leftists in the Democrat party Most Republican are Constitutionalist.



> Note to the wise, friends don't have to declare themselves as your best friend. That is decided by the other party, not you.



Then you better beware of the Democrats, because thats all they do&#8221; we are friends of the poor&#8221; "we are friends of minorities&#8221; I think you actually described them quite well




> The rush to pretend "friendship" with a people the right has spent hundreds of years attacking is all based on the reality that white America is shrinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship or understanding. Not even remotely.



You&#8217;re way off base with that one. Conservatives are color blind. It is the left that sees everyone in groups. They don&#8217;t look at the American people as a whole. it seems you have the same view. And let me remind you,  I am a Jew, most racist that don&#8217;t like blacks, don&#8217;t like Jews either    



> Is the right prepared to stop attacking our heroes and champions who put their lives on the line for the struggle for equality?
> 
> 
> NO, they are not.



Give me an example of you&#8217;re heroes? Have I attacked anybody personally?



> Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for hundreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?
> 
> NO, they are not.
> 
> Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?
> 
> NO, HELL NO, they are not.



Humm&#8230;who promotes white Supremacy? They sure as hell aren&#8217;t part of any Republican Party that I know of. If there are some then point them out. I would like to know who they are myself 



> Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."
> 
> Nobody is buying it.



You know what? I really don&#8217;t see why you&#8217;re so bitter were will it get you? Why don&#8217;t you appreciate the blessing you have simply by being born in this country? Why would you think I am you&#8217;re enemy? Do you know me? were in anything that I have posted would lead you to believe that I am you&#8217;re enemy? you might like this video...well then again you probably wont 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbKRvED41g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbKRvED41g[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc has given absolutely nothing to worry about.  Lincoln and Douglass as conservatives?  Please.  Nutters posting and then repeating the same nutty points.  Please.  Jroc et al don't understand historical and political definitions and events?  Yes.

The OP failed.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc has given absolutely nothing to worry about.  Lincoln and Douglass as conservatives?  Please.  Nutters posting and then repeating the same nutty points.  Please.  Jroc et al don't understand historical and political definitions and events?  Yes.
> 
> The OP failed.



Nothing new with you, You're contributions to this thread (If you can call it that)have been of little or no value.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recounting the history of a LONG DEAD Republican Party does not make republicans any friend of African-Americans today. Today's Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be quite the party it used to be, and there are plenty of people in the party that I disagree with, but as compared to the leftists in the Democrat party Most Republican are Constitutionalist.
Click to expand...


Constitutionalists .. totally and completely meaningless. Most on the right don't have a clue about the constitution or the founding of the country.



> Note to the wise, friends don't have to declare themselves as your best friend. That is decided by the other party, not you.





> Then you better beware of the Democrats, because thats all they do&#8221; we are friends of the poor&#8221; "we are friends of minorities&#8221; I think you actually described them quite well



Absolutely silly to the nth degree.

There are thousands of elected African-American democrats all over the country. Democrats had more African-Americans in Congress in 1970 then republicans have had since 1970 until now COMBINED.



> You&#8217;re way off base with that one. Conservatives are color blind. It is the left that sees everyone in groups. They don&#8217;t look at the American people as a whole. it seems you have the same view. And let me remind you,  I am a Jew, most racist that don&#8217;t like blacks, don&#8217;t like Jews either



Save that bullshit for someone else. The Republican Party is filled with racist and hate-mongers. Thank you Richard Nixon. You can't get rid of them or even piss 'em off because republicans would lose the south if they rejected their hate.

You being a Jew is equally meaningless in the argument.  I'm not respondidng to what you are, but to what you say.



> Give me an example of you&#8217;re heroes? Have I attacked anybody personally?



This ain't about you personally. It's about the right and the Republican Party.

My heroes ..

Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X
Angela Davis
Cynthia Mckinney

You get the point.

Explain how republicans can attack the people we honor, yet call themselves "friends?" 



> Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for hundreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?
> 
> NO, they are not.
> 
> Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?
> 
> NO, HELL NO, they are not.





> Humm&#8230;who promotes white Supremacy? They sure as hell aren&#8217;t part of any Republican Party that I know of. If there are some then point them out. I would like to know who they are myself



SEE: Nixon's southern strategy. That should give you some clue of what you pretend you don't know.



> Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."
> 
> Nobody is buying it.





> You know what? I really don&#8217;t see why you&#8217;re so bitter were will it get you? Why don&#8217;t you appreciate the blessing you have simply by being born in this country? Why would you think I am you&#8217;re enemy? Do you know me? were in anything that I have posted would lead you to believe that I am you&#8217;re enemy? you might like this video...well then again you probably wont



Who is bitter? I enjoy this.

It seems to me that it's you who is bitter because we don't buy the mindfuck about republicans being our allies. Isn't that what all this whining is about?

The premise of this thread is the ridiculous notion that republicans are our friends and allies. I don't know you, but if you don't believe that African-Americans are capable of deciding for themselves who our friends and allies are, then the question about who you are is moot.

We have made TREMENDOUS strides in a mere 45 years .. and we made those strides DESPITE all the hate and silly ass notions like this one. We were able to force issues because we gained the political power to force them. We gained that power THROUGH the Democratic Party. How that escapes you is telling.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc has given absolutely nothing to worry about.  Lincoln and Douglass as conservatives?  Please.  Nutters posting and then repeating the same nutty points.  Please.  Jroc et al don't understand historical and political definitions and events?  Yes.
> 
> The OP failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing new with you, You're contributions to this thread (If you can call it that)have been of little or no value.
Click to expand...


You are projecting your inadequacy of conversational dialogue onto me.

Lincoln a conservative?  Answered and dismissed.

Douglass a conservative?  Answered and dismissed.

History confounds your arguments.


----------



## BrianH

JakeStarkey said:


> *Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist*.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.
> 
> Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.
> 
> The OP failed a long time ago.



Definition of Abolitionist
"a reformer who favors abolishing slavery" --Therefore "anti-slavery"


----------



## BrianH

I hardly see Lincoln as a conservative.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BrianH said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist*.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.
> 
> Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.
> 
> The OP failed a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Abolitionist
> "a reformer who favors abolishing slavery" --Therefore "anti-slavery"
Click to expand...


That is not the traditional and historical definition and understanding of the term.

My point: you don't get to redefine terms to support your claims.


----------



## Jroc

> Quote: Originally Posted by BlackAsCoal
> Constitutionalists .. totally and completely meaningless. Most on the right don't have a clue about the constitution or the founding of the country.



Really? Enlighten me. What dont I understand about the Constitution and the founding?  




> There are thousands of elected African-American democrats all over the country. Democrats had more African-Americans in Congress in 1970 then republicans have had since 1970 until now COMBINED.



You keep going back to that..Head counts are meaningless




> Save that bullshit for someone else. The Republican Party is filled with racist and hate-mongers. Thank you Richard Nixon. You can't get rid of them or even piss 'em off because republicans would lose the south if they rejected their hate.



Really? Like I said name them, you keep saying that Republicans are a bunch of racist name them? And their policies. 




> You being a Jew is equally meaningless in the argument. I'm not respondidng to what you are, but to what you say.
> 
> This ain't about you personally. It's about the right and the Republican Party.



Thanks.. The only reason I mentioned it is because you asserted that this thread was part of an effort by white Republicans to court black voters, I just wanted to point out that in a lot of circles, I would not be considered white. Also my original post, the bullet points are years old and from a black religious group so youre point was ridicules   



> My heroes ..
> 
> Jesse Jackson
> Malcolm X
> Angela Davis
> Cynthia Mckinney
> 
> You get the point.



Humm.yeah so.. youre pretty much a socialist is that right?



> Explain how republicans can attack the people we honor, yet call themselves "friends?"
> Well I can kind of understand Malcolm X and Angela Davis the other two not so much
> :
> Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for hundreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?
> 
> NO, they are not.



 I guess youre right they are not prepared to accept Socialism 



> Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?
> 
> NO, HELL NO, they are not



Like I said, name um.. no names, then you're  statement is meaningless, of course there are racist in every group, for sure there are plenty in the Democrat party.



> SEE: Nixon's southern strategy. That should give you some clue of what you pretend you don't know.
> Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."
> 
> Nobody is buying it.



I think I posted this before maybe you missed it?

*Nixons Southern Strategy Was Not A Racist Appeal*

In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called Southern Strategy.  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's.  Nixon's "Southern Strategy was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007




> Who is bitter? I enjoy this.
> 
> It seems to me that it's you who is bitter because we don't buy the mindfuck about republicans being our allies. Isn't that what all this whining is about?
> 
> The premise of this thread is the ridiculous notion that republicans are our friends and allies. I don't know you, but if you don't believe that African-Americans are capable of deciding for themselves who our friends and allies are, then the question about who you are is moot.
> 
> We have made TREMENDOUS strides in a mere 45 years .. and we made those strides DESPITE all the hate and silly ass notions like this one. We were able to force issues because we gained the political power to force them. We gained that power THROUGH the Democratic Party. How that escapes you is telling



. 
Sorry but even you dont speak for all African Americans. Oh one more thing.. the fact that you choose to ignore this fact, just tells me that either you dont care, or don't have a good argument to support youre position. Those damn anti-abortion right wingers.. theyre trying to save Black Babies... Friken racist. 



> The killing of over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc keeps refusing to offer credible evidence to counter the evidence used to refute Jroc.

You need to step up, Jroc.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc keeps refusing to offer credible evidence to counter the evidence used to refute Jroc.
> 
> You need to step up, Jroc.



I haven't seen any evidence yet, maybe you could do me a favor and provide some.


----------



## Jroc

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTqeQ3XYIwI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTqeQ3XYIwI[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's right, Jroc, you keep making assertions without support.  I don't have to counter assertions with evidence.  When you post credible evidence, then the burden becomes mine.


----------



## Jroc

This whole thread is evidence that I have posted, you posted nothing I guess that means you don't have anything to support you postion?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> This whole thread is evidence that I have posted, you posted nothing I guess that means you don't have anything to support you postion?



Your assertions have been refuted.  Lincoln was not a conservative.  Douglass was not a conservative.  _Ipso facto_, your thesis (only Republicans or Conservatives support individual liberty fails).  I don't have to anything else that dismantle your assertion, which has easily been done.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thread is evidence that I have posted, you posted nothing I guess that means you don't have anything to support you postion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertions have been refuted.  Lincoln was not a conservative.  Douglass was not a conservative.  _Ipso facto_, your thesis (only Republicans or Conservatives support individual liberty fails).  I don't have to anything else that dismantle your assertion, which has easily been done.
Click to expand...


Do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Already done.  Neither Lincoln nor Douglass were conservatives, both were supporters of individual liberty (by your own admission), _ipso facto_, your thesis fails.  No one has to do anything else.

Here, this may help.  Figure out the facts and events, and then twist your philosophy to fit them.  Critical thinking skills mean that when the facts dictate you should change your thesis, the mature adult will do so.


----------



## Jroc

Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it. 


Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation. 





Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands. 


What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery &#8212; a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs. 

Walter Williams


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.
> 
> 
> Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
> 
> 
> What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery  a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.
> 
> Walter Williams



That may be.  But Walter does not make that link between the facts and the conclusion.  Can you do that?  Are the other alternative possibilities?  You have to consider those and give reasons why alternate possibilities do not answer the question.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.
> 
> 
> Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
> 
> 
> What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery  a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.
> 
> Walter Williams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be.  But Walter does not make that link between the facts and the conclusion.  Can you do that?  Are the other alternative possibilities?  You have to consider those and give reasons why alternate possibilities do not answer the question.
Click to expand...


The facts are that government cannot take the place the family, if we constantly make excuses for failure, which is what the left does, then how do we expect anything to improve. The facts are inner cities public schools are failing are kids, while the left wants to pour more money into them. It is fact that black leaders on the left find excuses for the situations that black Americans (and poor whites) are in today. so while these black politicians have their power, that has done nothing to help blacks in general, those are facts. If you want me to say that it is because of racism and discrimination against blacks that those stats are as they are, you're not going to get that from me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Did I say anything about "racism and discrimination"?

Since we are making assertions, I will make one.  The failure of America is the failure of the American parents as a whole.  If American parents had insisted on their children succeeding instead of relying on the school systems, public and private, to substitute the link for American parents responsibility, I truly believe the country would be far better off.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> .
> *Sorry but even you don&#8217;t speak for all African Americans.* Oh&#8230; one more thing.. the fact that you choose to ignore this fact, just tells me that either you don&#8217;t care, or don't have a good argument to support you&#8217;re position. Those damn anti-abortion right wingers.. they&#8217;re trying to save Black Babies... Friken racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
Click to expand...




You don't speak for any of them .. but regardless of who speaks for us, our actions speaks for us all. We have REJECTED the foolish notion of republicans as our friends and allies.

Feel free to ignore the voice and delude yourself into whatever you choose to believe.

Makes no difference.

They aren't trying to save black babies you idiot .. they're trying to save the white ones to bolster their dwindling population ratio.

Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics. 

Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Did I say anything about "racism and discrimination"?
> 
> Since we are making assertions, I will make one.  The failure of America is the failure of the American parents as a whole.  If American parents had insisted on their children succeeding instead of relying on the school systems, public and private, to substitute the link for American parents responsibility, I truly believe the country would be far better off.



Ok.. I can agree with that, but the fact is that these politicians make excuses for failure and most of these parents have grown up in dysfunctional households themselves. But these same kids, it has been proven, do much better when they have a choice of schools as was the case with the voucher program in D.C. But the Dems chose to cancel that program why? Because their allies the teachers unions didn't want it. this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about.


----------



## Jroc

BlackAsCoal said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Sorry but even you don&#8217;t speak for all African Americans.* Oh&#8230; one more thing.. the fact that you choose to ignore this fact, just tells me that either you don&#8217;t care, or don't have a good argument to support you&#8217;re position. Those damn anti-abortion right wingers.. they&#8217;re trying to save Black Babies... Friken racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for any of them .. but regardless of who speaks for us, our actions speaks for us all. We have REJECTED the foolish notion of republicans as our friends and allies.
> 
> Feel free to ignore the voice and delude yourself into whatever you choose to believe.
> 
> Makes no difference.
> 
> They aren't trying to save black babies you idiot .. they're trying to save the white ones to bolster their dwindling population ratio.
> 
> Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics.
> 
> Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.
Click to expand...


That&#8217;s pathetic... ok... you can move on because you are beyond help. You're stuck in you're own pathetic delusions.. I'm sorry for you.


----------



## Tank

BlackAsCoal said:


> Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics.
> 
> Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.


If you think whites hate blacks, wait till Hispanics are the majority.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Jroc said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Sorry but even you don&#8217;t speak for all African Americans.* Oh&#8230; one more thing.. the fact that you choose to ignore this fact, just tells me that either you don&#8217;t care, or don't have a good argument to support you&#8217;re position. Those damn anti-abortion right wingers.. they&#8217;re trying to save Black Babies... Friken racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for any of them .. but regardless of who speaks for us, our actions speaks for us all. We have REJECTED the foolish notion of republicans as our friends and allies.
> 
> Feel free to ignore the voice and delude yourself into whatever you choose to believe.
> 
> Makes no difference.
> 
> They aren't trying to save black babies you idiot .. they're trying to save the white ones to bolster their dwindling population ratio.
> 
> Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics.
> 
> Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That&#8217;s pathetic... ok... you can move on because you are beyond help. You're stuck in you're own pathetic delusions.. I'm sorry for you.
Click to expand...




Fuck your sorry. I don't need you to help me with ANYTHING. I'm betting that I have more than you do. You're just a blip on my screen that is dumb enough to profess the completely stupid.

"Head counts don't count"  Spoken like a true racist and a dedicated moron.

B'wana will tell you all you need to know. Ignore the fact that there are few of you in my party and almost none of you in our leadership .. but only we are your friends.



Obviously you take your status as a moron quite seriously.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hispanics hate folks that inhabit sites like storm front.  I mean hate them and intend to make sure they have no influence on community politics.


----------



## BlackAsCoal

Tank said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics.
> 
> Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think whites hate blacks, wait till Hispanics are the majority.
Click to expand...


Well, well .. the idiot pussy from the basement.

I'm real sure you're familiar with the fairy tale of the Alamo. Brave American heroes fighting the evil Mexicans for "freedom."



An idiot bedtime fairy-tale for dummies.

In fact, it was fought because Texas refused to give up its property, human slaves. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, long before the US did .. and it had become a place of escape for many slaves.

Now a cowardly punkette like you comes to sell YOUR fear. 

That's how you neanderthals operate .. on fear.

BEWARE THE MEXICANS .. they're more racist then we are.


----------



## Jroc

BlackAsCoal said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for any of them .. but regardless of who speaks for us, our actions speaks for us all. We have REJECTED the foolish notion of republicans as our friends and allies.
> 
> Feel free to ignore the voice and delude yourself into whatever you choose to believe.
> 
> Makes no difference.
> 
> They aren't trying to save black babies you idiot .. they're trying to save the white ones to bolster their dwindling population ratio.
> 
> Hispanics outnumber African-Americans in America. So what? We aren't afraid of hispanics.
> 
> Hispanics immigrate to this country in much higher numbers then blacks .. AND, they have higher birth rates than blacks or whites .. something that most morons already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats pathetic... ok... you can move on because you are beyond help. You're stuck in you're own pathetic delusions.. I'm sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck your sorry. I don't need you to help me with ANYTHING. I'm betting that I have more than you do. You're just a blip on my screen that is dumb enough to profess the completely stupid.
> 
> "Head counts don't count"  Spoken like a true racist and a dedicated moron.
> 
> B'wana will tell you all you need to know. Ignore the fact that there are few of you in my party and almost none of you in our leadership .. but only we are your friends.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you take your status as a moron quite seriously.
Click to expand...


You see... the thing is.. I won't stoop to you're level. but you've been exposed for what you are. Enough said about you, but I'll keep posting in this thread in spite of people like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything about "racism and discrimination"?
> 
> Since we are making assertions, I will make one.  The failure of America is the failure of the American parents as a whole.  If American parents had insisted on their children succeeding instead of relying on the school systems, public and private, to substitute the link for American parents responsibility, I truly believe the country would be far better off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.. I can agree with that, but the fact is that these politicians make excuses for failure and most of these parents have grown up in dysfunctional households themselves. But these same kids, it has been proven, do much better when they have a choice of schools as was the case with the voucher program in D.C. But the Dems chose to cancel that program why? Because their allies the teachers unions didn't want it. this is the kind of stuff i'm talking about.
Click to expand...


Match that with the far right trying to privatize public education.  We see how effective and compassionate that has turned out with orphans and foster kids, the mentally impaired, and our elder care homes.  Break the heart.

I think we have to accept the facts that (1) we are not going back to the 1920s and (2) we are not going to a full welfare state like Sweden.  We have to work together in order to succeed.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Match that with the far right trying to privatize public education.  We see how effective and compassionate that has turned out with orphans and foster kids, the mentally impaired, and our elder care homes.  Break the heart.



Well..I don't actually see anything wrong with private education regulated by the States But complete control over funding to our public schools by the federal government is too political with too many interest groups especially the NEA 



> I think we have to accept the facts that (1) we are not going back to the 1920s and (2) we are not going to a full welfare state like Sweden.  We have to work together in order to succeed.



I agree... Which is why no one group of people should be beholden to any on one political party or ideology makes no sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then business should give up the GOP and minorities the Dems?  That is not going to happen.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Then business should give up the GOP and minorities the Dems?  That is not going to happen.



So you think Business is only is bed with the GOP? Thats were you're mistaken they are in bed with whomever is in power which is why big government with too much power is the main problem.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnT-X2jlQs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnT-X2jlQs[/ame]


----------



## BrianH

JakeStarkey said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist*.  Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient.  Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital.  Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.
> 
> Frederick Douglass was abolitionist.  FD would not talk to Jroc.
> 
> The OP failed a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Abolitionist
> "a reformer who favors abolishing slavery" --Therefore "anti-slavery"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the traditional and historical definition and understanding of the term.
> 
> My point: you don't get to redefine terms to support your claims.
Click to expand...


I can agree with that point.


----------



## Jroc

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987-an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million

Ronald Reagan ? More of a Friend to Blacks Than Obama? | Black Politics on the Web


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987-an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million
> 
> Ronald Reagan ? More of a Friend to Blacks Than Obama? | Black Politics on the Web



Compare that with black unemployment in 1963 with 1969 and black business ownership in the same period.  Do that again for the era from 1993 to 1999.  Then you might have something to talk about.


----------



## JScott

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



If you were their allies theyd be lining up to vote for republicans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JScott said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>]
> 
> 
> 
> If you were their allies theyd be lining up to vote for republicans.
Click to expand...


Either, then Jroc, thinks minorities are too stupid to see who their allies are, which is racist in concept, or he is lying, whether deliberately or not remains to be seen.  I know he is racist.  I wonder just how stupid he is.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>]
> 
> 
> 
> If you were their allies theyd be lining up to vote for republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either, then Jroc, thinks minorities are too stupid to see who their allies are, which is racist in concept, or he is lying, whether deliberately or not remains to be seen.  *I know he is racist.*  I wonder just how stupid he is.
Click to expand...


Really? Prove it. That&#8217;s the problem with you libs somebody speaks the truth and you call them a racist, based on what? You people don't give me any evidence to refute anything I posted; all we get from you is insults and name-calling. Shows how strong your arguments really are doesn't it?  Like I said before most of the evidence I posted are all put out by black conservative groups those bullet points were put out by the pastor of a black church here in Michigan try clicking on the links before you make assumptions because they make you look like a fool


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>]
> 
> 
> 
> If you were their allies theyd be lining up to vote for republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either, then Jroc, thinks minorities are too stupid to see who their allies are, which is racist in concept, or he is lying, whether deliberately or not remains to be seen.  I know he is racist.  I wonder just how stupid he is.
Click to expand...


I doubt anyone could be as stupid as you JakeStarkey, again your attacking an USMB user on a personal level. Address the issue JakeStarkey, must JakeStarkey always revert to uncivil personal attacks. JakeStarkey can never be man enought to admit being wrong, by in this case the end justifies the means. JakeStarkey must always win and when the debate is lost, here we see JakeStarkey.

Your turn Jakey, tell everyone how I am bitter, how I am whining, I am just saying your a hypocrite, that JakeStarkey is a bit ignorant, and when proven so, JakeStarkey becomse very thin skinned.

Anyhow, that is all I have to say, JakeStarkey, I give you the last word on this one, say whatever you like about me, I will not respond, I want you to end your evening feeling you won. Go ahead, insult me. I am sitting down, ha ha.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I give what I get, mdn2000.  The OP is flatly wrong.  Black Americans know it.  I wish it were different, but it is not.


----------



## mdn2000

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JScott said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were their allies theyd be lining up to vote for republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either, then Jroc, thinks minorities are too stupid to see who their allies are, which is racist in concept, or he is lying, whether deliberately or not remains to be seen.  *I know he is racist.*  I wonder just how stupid he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Prove it. Thats the problem with you libs somebody speaks the truth and you call them a racist, based on what? You people don't give me any evidence to refute anything I posted; all we get from you is insults and name-calling. Shows how strong your arguments really are doesn't it?  Like I said before most of the evidence I posted are all put out by black conservative groups those bullet points were put out by the pastor of a black church here in Michigan try clicking on the links before you make assumptions because they make you look like a fool
Click to expand...


Wow, be careful there, you have now opened yourself for the next tactic of a loser, Jakey will call you a whine and resorting to name calling, too funny, Jakey whines and crys like a fool when Jakey loses, calling others the evil inside of his own heart.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000's bitterness spills into public.  A shame.  Jroc has not carried any of his points.  He says the GOP is the real ally of African Americans, yet more than 90% of them affiliate with the Dems.  The only way Jroc can defend his OP is to suggest the Dems fool blacks, thus clearly stating that blacks aren't smart enough to really decide for themselves.  That thinking is racist.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000's bitterness spills into public.  A shame.  Jroc has not carried any of his points.  He says the GOP is the real ally of African Americans, yet more than 90% of them affiliate with the Dems.  The only way Jroc can defend his OP is to suggest the Dems fool blacks, thus clearly stating that blacks aren't smart enough to really decide for themselves.  That thinking is racist.



Still nothing...Nothing to refute any of my posts. What does that say? The funny thing is as long as African Americans have been allied almost exclusively with the Democrat party what have they gotten? More members in congress... So what? Power for some black politicians nothing for average African Americans. So I'll keep posting till someone steps up with something of substance, minus the mindless insults....More to come


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000's bitterness spills into public.  A shame.  Jroc has not carried any of his points.  He says the GOP is the real ally of African Americans, yet more than 90% of them affiliate with the Dems.  The only way Jroc can defend his OP is to suggest the Dems fool blacks, thus clearly stating that blacks aren't smart enough to really decide for themselves.  That thinking is racist.



90% of African Democrats line up behind the Democrats, that is, in the, "back of the bus". Its nice you good ole Democrats still got your slaves riding in the back of the bus. Jakey, why no defense of your statement, we can all see your just bullshitting, I never realized that a 100% of the African Americans vote and that a solid 90% of every single voting age African American is voting and 90% exactly votes Democrat. I guess Snoop Dog and 50 cent got their street cred voting Democrat.

Incredible Jakey, I am truely humbled by such concise posts.

(so bitter I fogot to address my bitterness, Jakey, your so great at evaluating someone over the internet, how do you do this with such incredible accuracy, how do you know so much without meeting me, you really are very smart to be able to tell everyone exactly how I feel, I actually had no idea of my bitterness, I was in complete denial and Jakey, you have opened my eyes, thanks for your great insight and analysis, you are a great person to help as you do, thanks Jakey).

If you wish Jakey, I will give you the last word, I see the importance of always having the last word, so go ahead.


----------



## Jroc

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bZtvQvyszk"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bZtvQvyszk[/ame]


----------



## mdn2000

Democrats control Hollywood, what was the name of the last Black to win an Oscar, how long ago?


----------



## Jroc

Obama and the Democrats side with the NEA and abandons black kids stuck in failing public schools..


[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V34kYMm82oo"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V34kYMm82oo[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> <snip>



Jroc's OP was dismantled long ago.  mdn2000's comments above do not deserve mentioning other than they are as racist as Jroc's suppositions.  If we in the GOP had something to offer the black minority, they would be flooding into the party.  However, after the 1964 and 1965 acts that put federal force into the cause of civil rights and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, black Americans had no reason to stay in a party that no longer valued them.  Until we in the GOP change that basic fact, blacks will overwhelmingly vote for our political enemies.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc's OP was dismantled long ago.  mdn2000's comments above do not deserve mentioning other than they are as racist as Jroc's suppositions.  If we in the GOP had something to offer the black minority, they would be flooding into the party.  However, after the 1964 and 1965 acts that put federal force into the cause of civil rights and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, black Americans had no reason to stay in a party that no longer valued them.  Until we in the GOP change that basic fact, blacks will overwhelmingly vote for our political enemies.
Click to expand...


If my comments do not deserve mentioning why bother to mention them Jake, sounds like your insecure. Are you Jake, are you insecure.

Are you in the GOP Jake, because if you are, just because a Rat is in the cookie jar, that don't make no Rat a cookie. I mean that not as an insult, but as an analogy that seems simple enough for you to understand Jake.


----------



## The T

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc's OP was dismantled long ago. mdn2000's comments above do not deserve mentioning other than they are as racist as Jroc's suppositions. If we in the GOP had something to offer the black minority, they would be flooding into the party. However, after the 1964 and 1965 acts that put federal force into the cause of civil rights and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, black Americans had no reason to stay in a party that no longer valued them. Until we in the GOP change that basic fact, blacks will overwhelmingly vote for our political enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If my comments do not deserve mentioning why bother to mention them Jake, sounds like your insecure. Are you Jake, are you insecure.
> 
> Are you in the GOP Jake, because if you are, just because a Rat is in the cookie jar, that don't make no Rat a cookie. I mean that not as an insult, but as an analogy that seems simple enough for you to understand Jake.
Click to expand...

 
Jake Cannot help himself to the point of snipping entire posts. What does that tell you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 has trouble with expressing his opinions as usual and goes back to being a whiner.  Yes, the GOP needs to change its policies to make them far more user friendly to minorities.  Yes, I am a Republican and have no desire to be a Republican like those who supposedly are GOP far far to the reactionary agenda-driven activists who threaten the security and stability and civil liberties of America.


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc's OP was dismantled long ago.  mdn2000's comments above do not deserve mentioning other than they are as racist as Jroc's suppositions.  If we in the GOP had something to offer the black minority, they would be flooding into the party.  However, after the 1964 and 1965 acts that put federal force into the cause of civil rights and Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, black Americans had no reason to stay in a party that no longer valued them.  Until we in the GOP change that basic fact, blacks will overwhelmingly vote for our political enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If my comments do not deserve mentioning why bother to mention them Jake, sounds like your insecure. Are you Jake, are you insecure.
> 
> Are you in the GOP Jake, because if you are, just because a Rat is in the cookie jar, that don't make no Rat a cookie. I mean that not as an insult, but as an analogy that seems simple enough for you to understand Jake.
Click to expand...


I see you had to skip what you have no defense of Jake.

How many ways have you described me now, you know, I forget what we are even talking about you get so busy with your personal bitterness, not to mention I got to clean dog shit off my feet every time I step into one of your posts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc and mdn2000 simply can't answer the issue that more than 90% of black Americans are Democrats because the GOP will not meet their needs.  If they suggest that the GOP has been more forthright to minority issues, then that is a false statement.  If they suggest that the Dems have pulled the wool over blacks' vision, then that is racist.

The simple fact is that the post 1968 GOP has very little to offer to minority America.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc and mdn2000 simply can't answer the issue that more than 90% of black Americans are Democrats because the GOP will not meet their needs.  If they suggest that the GOP has been more forthright to minority issues, then that is a false statement.  If they suggest that the Dems have pulled the wool over blacks' vision, then that is racist.





Really? this whole thread is full of of what the GOP has to offer African Americans. So what do you think they should be offering Black Americans? What do the Dems offer that you think has helped blacks in this country? Now try to be specific becouse you have done niether. I would apreciate your imput. Show me were I'm wrong here? What are "thier needs"


----------



## JakeStarkey

The issue is on the GOP, not the Dems or me, for that matter, but on what the GOP offers that should draw black Americans.  The proof that whatever is that you believe should suffice simply does not appeal to more than 90% of black Americans.  That's what you must deal with.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The issue is on the GOP, not the Dems or me, for that matter, but on what the GOP offers that should draw black Americans.  The proof that whatever is that you believe should suffice simply does not appeal to more than 90 of black Americans.  That's what you must deal with.



So you can't answer the question?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The question has been asnwered since page 1.  The GOP are not the real allies of African Americans.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The question has been asnwered since page 1.  The GOP are not the real allies of African Americans.



 Thank you for those words of wisdom it was not a question, The topic is  "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" I gave you the evidence to support this. Now give me some evidence to dispute this. Are you able?


----------



## Jroc

"Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for."


History News Network


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> The question has been asnwered since page 1.  The GOP are not the real allies of African Americans.



GOP, DOP, MOP, Liberals, Democrats, Congress, the President, local governments, a lot of people have not been freinds of the children of the slaves. I think the exception now is that the media and politicians try to divide us. I of course understand that there is work to be done, but as a man that lives amongst the childrend of the slaves and being a pure conservative I am in a unique position to Judge these things.

Detroit, remember those riots of 67, I can not, I do remember 68 and 69 asking Dad if we could go to the baseball game, it had to be a year we won and I am not about to google the answer, but anyhow I was born in 63 so I was four at best during the Detroit riots of 67. I remember Dad just simply saying it was too dangerous to go to Detroit, we lived in East Detroit, then Warren, and later in Macomb county. I remember segregated neighborhoods, which seemed natural, human nature seems to like the same color in people, I never saw hostility toward the children of slaves, I remember lots of people calling them lazy. I was always told to never trust them. Back then, advise like that kept you alive. You did not go to Detroit, if you did, or I did, I understood there were places Tow Trucks would not go at night, places you could not go as a white person. The Police road three officers to a car. 

Detroit is a dangerous place, deadly, murder capital of the world. 

I heard stories of dogs that hated colored people, everyone called them *******, which refered to the worst of the negroes. I understood the word ****** to be how they talked in the south, that they called them ****** through lazy english. I never saw hate related to the word ******.

I always lived in a white city, then a suburb, then the pure white country of Macomb County. 

I remember the first black man I ever saw, I remember the first black child. 

I have lived to see the complete destruction of Detroit, all at the hands of African Americans, pure Democrats.

Even Bill Cosby points out who has not been allies of African Americans. 

Michigan, unions and liberals as long as I can remember.


----------



## signelect

Poor uneducated blacks hvae been exploited by both parties in the name of justice.  I do think the dem's are just interested in votes, promise them anything and give them public housing a true road to no where.  Shelia Jackson Lee is very proud of the new public housing project that already is a  pretty bad place to live, better than a bridge but not by much.  Education and opportunity are the key not empty promises by community activist.


----------



## Jroc

signelect said:


> Poor uneducated blacks hvae been exploited by both parties in the name of justice.  I do think the dem's are just interested in votes, promise them anything and give them public housing a true road to no where.  Shelia Jackson Lee is very proud of the new public housing project that already is a  pretty bad place to live, better than a bridge but not by much.  Education and opportunity are the key not empty promises by community activist.



I don't see it how have Republicans exploited blacks?


----------



## Jroc

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question has been asnwered since page 1.  The GOP are not the real allies of African Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP, DOP, MOP, Liberals, Democrats, Congress, the President, local governments, a lot of people have not been freinds of the children of the slaves. I think the exception now is that the media and politicians try to divide us. I of course understand that there is work to be done, but as a man that lives amongst the childrend of the slaves and being a pure conservative I am in a unique position to Judge these things.
> 
> Detroit, remember those riots of 67, I can not, I do remember 68 and 69 asking Dad if we could go to the baseball game, it had to be a year we won and I am not about to google the answer, but anyhow I was born in 63 so I was four at best during the Detroit riots of 67. I remember Dad just simply saying it was too dangerous to go to Detroit, we lived in East Detroit, then Warren, and later in Macomb county. I remember segregated neighborhoods, which seemed natural, human nature seems to like the same color in people, I never saw hostility toward the children of slaves, I remember lots of people calling them lazy. I was always told to never trust them. Back then, advise like that kept you alive. You did not go to Detroit, if you did, or I did, I understood there were places Tow Trucks would not go at night, places you could not go as a white person. The Police road three officers to a car.
> 
> Detroit is a dangerous place, deadly, murder capital of the world.
> 
> I heard stories of dogs that hated colored people, everyone called them *******, which refered to the worst of the negroes. I understood the word ****** to be how they talked in the south, that they called them ****** through lazy english. I never saw hate related to the word ******.
> 
> I always lived in a white city, then a suburb, then the pure white country of Macomb County.
> 
> I remember the first black man I ever saw, I remember the first black child.
> 
> I have lived to see the complete destruction of Detroit, all at the hands of African Americans, pure Democrats.
> 
> Even Bill Cosby points out who has not been allies of African Americans.
> 
> Michigan, unions and liberals as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...



I agree with some of you're points but I think it's time to drop "the children of slaves" thing its been used as a crutch for too long. I think I've got a little better prospective then you. I grew up inner city Detroit, and we all had the same mentality. Black or white didn't matter I was a hoodlum like the rest of my friends both black and white, I've been in gang fights, I've been shot, But I got out of that life, a lot of good people didn't.   Its the environment the culture of dependency perpetrated by the democrat party, the Great Society welfare state bullshit, a culture of victim hood you are in this situation because of this or that. Actually the purpose of this thread was to inform people that don't know the history, they can make up their own minds but some people on his board would rather attack then to have a discussion thats fine if somebody learns something from this thread Ive done what I wanted to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor uneducated blacks hvae been exploited by both parties in the name of justice.  I do think the dem's are just interested in votes, promise them anything and give them public housing a true road to no where.  Shelia Jackson Lee is very proud of the new public housing project that already is a  pretty bad place to live, better than a bridge but not by much.  Education and opportunity are the key not empty promises by community activist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it how have Republicans exploited blacks?
Click to expand...


The GOP attempted to create a permanent majority through a black-white consensus in the reconstruction South, and when that failed, the party abandoned blacks and turned its attention to making western territories into states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you have to learn before you can teach.  You write as if you know the definitive story.  Very politely let me tell you that you don't.

I am glad you are out of the life, and I am glad you have healed from your wounds.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> signelect said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor uneducated blacks hvae been exploited by both parties in the name of justice.  I do think the dem's are just interested in votes, promise them anything and give them public housing a true road to no where.  Shelia Jackson Lee is very proud of the new public housing project that already is a  pretty bad place to live, better than a bridge but not by much.  Education and opportunity are the key not empty promises by community activist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it how have Republicans exploited blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP attempted to create a permanent majority through a black-white consensus in the reconstruction South, and when that failed, the party abandoned blacks and turned its attention to making western territories into states.
Click to expand...




I don't see were they abounded blacks at all. My points go all the way up to present day with the school vouchers and abortion issues. Of course the Republican Party has not done what they should to convince the African Americans that their positions are better for them and the country as a whole. One reason is because Democrats demagogue, play raced based politics, and some fake ass so-called "civil rights leaders and organizations help them with that, but times are changing and I think conservatives can make inroads We have a lot of great black conservative politicians coming up and more will come:cool


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it how have Republicans exploited blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP attempted to create a permanent majority through a black-white consensus in the reconstruction South, and when that failed, the party abandoned blacks and turned its attention to making western territories into states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see were they abounded blacks at all. My points go all the way up to present day with the school vouchers and abortion issues. Of course the Republican Party has not done what they should to convince the African Americans that their positions are better for them and the country as a whole. One reason is because Democrats demagogue, play raced based politics, and some fake ass so-called "civil rights leaders and organizations help them with that, but times are changing and I think conservatives can make inroads We have a lot of great black conservative politicians coming up and more will come:cool
Click to expand...


But we have not offered alternatives that blacks would say, "They are trying to meet our needs without us having to be cookie cutter models of whites."  Some Democrat demogogues do play race, but do not ignore our own party racists, some of whom I have deal with here in my own district on a regular basis.  Yelling about what the other guy is doing without taking major pro-active steps and SHOUTING THEM FROM THE ROOFTOPS will not help.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP attempted to create a permanent majority through a black-white consensus in the reconstruction South, and when that failed, the party abandoned blacks and turned its attention to making western territories into states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see were they abounded blacks at all. My points go all the way up to present day with the school vouchers and abortion issues. Of course the Republican Party has not done what they should to convince the African Americans that their positions are better for them and the country as a whole. One reason is because Democrats demagogue, play raced based politics, and some fake ass so-called "civil rights leaders and organizations help them with that, but times are changing and I think conservatives can make inroads We have a lot of great black conservative politicians coming up and more will come:cool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we have not offered alternatives that blacks would say, "They are trying to meet our needs without us having to be cookie cutter models of whites."  Some Democrat demogogues do play race, but do not ignore our own party racists, some of whom I have deal with here in my own district on a regular basis.  Yelling about what the other guy is doing without taking major pro-active steps and SHOUTING THEM FROM THE ROOFTOPS will not help.
Click to expand...


I don't ignore any racist. There are racist in every group, both parties and amongst all races, but thats a straw man argument deflecting from the real issues. It would be nice if you or anybody else would spell out what exactly Democrat party has done to advance African Americans. I have yet to hear that from anybody. Like said inner city education is about blacks more then any other group, vouchers would help them, Skyrocketing abortion rate effects blacks more then any other group, The wakeo environmentalist movement kills job that raise the unemployment rate which is highest among blacks, also millions of black Africans die as a result of the banning of DDT it's all in this thread. Now your turn.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you do not understand that your argument is straw man.  You willfully mischaracterize what Dems and Pubs have done, instead of giving a balanced, objective appraisal of both parties' successes and failures.  As long as you willfully ignore Dem advances and minimumize GOP problems on behalf of blacks, you can't go forward.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc, you do not understand that your argument is straw man.  You willfully mischaracterize what Dems and Pubs have done, instead of giving a balanced, objective appraisal of both parties' successes and failures.  As long as you willfully ignore Dem advances and minimumize GOP problems on behalf of blacks, you can't go forward.



Since you have not made any attempt at refuting anything I've claimed, or even made an effort to support you're position (which is not really clear) then your right, how can we go forward with the discussion? You might start with pointing out what policies proposed and implemented by the * Democrat Party * have helped African Americans? It's not a trick question. Oh.. And for the record good intentions are not the same as policies that have actually help Black Americans.... Go.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have refuted every false claim you have made, period.  I agree that the Dems have a lot more to do, but it is obvious that our GOP is not winning the hearts and minds of African Americans.

What do our GOP leaders and folks throughout the country need to do, Jroc.?  Don't worry about the other side.  We need to figure what we are going to do.

If you say that we have done the right things, but the blacks can't see it, then you are saying either we have not marketed it correctly or that they are too dumb to see it.  The former is more likely than the latter.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> I have refuted every false claim you have made, period.  I agree that the Dems have a lot more to do, but it is obvious that our GOP is not winning the hearts and minds of African Americans.
> 
> What do our GOP leaders and folks throughout the country need to do, Jroc.?  Don't worry about the other side.  We need to figure what we are going to do.
> 
> If you say that we have done the right things, but the blacks can't see it, then you are saying either we have not marketed it correctly or that they are too dumb to see it.  The former is more likely than the latter.



Ok.. I give up. You have refuted it how? By saying you're wrong? Or thats incorrect? That doesn't mean anything. How do you counter a position that you believe is incorrect? With facts refuting that position, not one-word answers. You jumped into this thread, So I assumed you could back up your position. I guess I was wrong. As far as people being "dumb" that's your word not mine. People can be intelligent and ignorant at the same time. Obama is a prime example of that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have refuted every false claim you have made, period.  I agree that the Dems have a lot more to do, but it is obvious that our GOP is not winning the hearts and minds of African Americans.
> 
> What do our GOP leaders and folks throughout the country need to do, Jroc.?  Don't worry about the other side.  We need to figure what we are going to do.
> 
> If you say that we have done the right things, but the blacks can't see it, then you are saying either we have not marketed it correctly or that they are too dumb to see it.  The former is more likely than the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.. I give up. You have refuted it how? By saying you're wrong? Or thats incorrect? That doesn't mean anything. How do you counter a position that you believe is incorrect? With facts refuting that position, not one-word answers. You jumped into this thread, So I assumed you could back up your position. I guess I was wrong. As far as people being "dumb" that's your word not mine. People can be intelligent and ignorant at the same time. Obama is a prime example of that.
Click to expand...


You are face down in the mud of your arguments, and you are still denying it.  I knocked down your silliness, showed repeatedly examples of where you were wrong and gave examples of what is right, and you are still face down in the mud and denying it.

So stop it.

What must we in the GOP do to win the hearts and mind of African Americans?


----------



## Jroc

The race baiters attack these people. There are many more But they are "uncle Toms"  

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2tzHqEVl7Q"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2tzHqEVl7Q[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf6H47hXa3U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf6H47hXa3U[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8292_Eqi94"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8292_Eqi94[/ame]

[ame="http://ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqlrVmVULc"]http://ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqlrVmVULc[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, can you answer a logical question: what must we do to change the % of African Americans in our party?


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc, can you answer a logical question: what must we do to change the % of African Americans in our party?



Inform and educate, not make excuses ( which is what I'm trying to do here) "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" Like i said the race hustlers make big money off of things the way they are. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuL8F9oHC2Q"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuL8F9oHC2Q[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our party has obviously failed in this area.  Exactly what do we to educate and inform?  How do we as a party do this?


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Our party has obviously failed in this area.  Exactly what do we to educate and inform?  How do we as a party do this?



You seem to so easily dismiss my points here, all of which are accurate (even though you don't see it) We never learned this stuff in the Detroit public schools . Education is the answer, Real education, real history, not politically correct bullshit. Thats were vouchers come in, It's not really what ethier of the parties have to do, it's what we have to do as Americans. Reforming our eduactional system is the only way.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have dismissed the justifications you gave on the earlier points, none of which you were able to carry.  But I don't care about that.

What are vouchers going to do?  How do we get them in place?  How do we guarantee that "real history" is taught?

I am not attacking.  I want to know how we do this.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> I have dismissed the justifications you gave on the earlier points, none of which you were able to carry.  But I don't care about that.



Ok.... Then you don't understand the purposed of the thread or you just dismiss it because you don't agree with what I posted but you never posted anything refuting it. So what does that say? Either you're too lazy to find evidence to support your opinion, or you cant support it. Either way not very impressive  



> What are vouchers going to do?






> *African-American Students Increase Test Scores in School Voucher Programs, Study Shows*
> 
> A two-year study of school voucher programs in New York City, Washington D.C., and Dayton, Ohio has revealed a steady improvement in test-score performance among African-American participants.
> 
> The results from randomized field trials, undertaken by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, showed a three percentile point increase in test scores after one year and a six point increase after two years among African-American students who switched from public to private schools. No effects were observed for students from other ethnic backgrounds.
> 
> According to Paul Peterson, a professor at the Kennedy School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, "the benefits of the program for African-American students close the national test-score gap between white students and African-American students by one-third."



ttp://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/press-releases/african-american-students-increase-test-scores-in-school-voucher-programs,-study-shows




> *Safer Kids, Better Test Scores: The D.C. Voucher Program Works*
> 
> In January 2004, Congress passed the District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act of 2003, the first federally funded school voucher program in the United States. Now known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, this initiative provides scholarships of up to $7,500 to more than 1,900 low-income students in the District. A recent U.S. Department of Education (DOE) evaluation of the program should provide policymakers with some encouragement, as the report demonstrates that the Opportunity Scholarship Program is having a positive impact on students and families alike.[1]
> 
> Academic Achievement
> 
> The DOE evaluation reviews the first two years of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, examining approximately 19 months of instruction. The results indicate that students who received vouchers realized higher academic achievement than students who were not awarded a voucher, though the differences between both groups of students were not statistically significant.[2]
> 
> Despite this lack of statistical differentiation, students who participated in the Opportunity Scholarship Program achieved higher reading scores than students who did not. The study also indicated that certain subgroups of students experienced significant positive gains in reading achievement.[3] These results are encouraging because they offer compelling evidence of two years of positive achievement gains for D.C. voucher program participants



Safer Kids, Better Test Scores: The D.C. Voucher Program Works | The Heritage Foundation



> How do we get them in place?  How do we guarantee that "real history" is taught?




Well..obviously the dems aren't going to do it, so I guess that means we have to elect a large majority conservative Republican government. In a perfect world we should not have public sector unions in the first place. There are plenty of things that can be done to improve education in this country, But too many people look for excuses or are too worried about the NEA and thier damn pension plans which is were the bulk of the money goes 300million dollar defecit!! in Detroit public schools.. unreal!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you posting large amounts of info does not do anything when you ignore the questions.  Here they are again.

What are vouchers going to do? How do we get them in place? How do we guarantee that "real history" is taught?

Answer these questions specifically one after another.


----------



## mdn2000

Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000, thank you for answering part of the question.  Were you required to read Zinn and Chomsky in college?  Did you read the Bible, the Quran, Hitler, Lenin, Madison, Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Roosevelt (both of them), Lincoln, Marshall, Dreiser, Hart, James, Wolfe, Shelley, Byron, Keats (!), Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Ibsen, Proust, Pratchett, and hundreds of other writers?  You really think suppression of writers' works is the way to go, when I think, in all honesty, if your writers cannot combat their opponents, something is wrong with your point.  Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.


----------



## Martin35

Abe Lincoln took the black man a far as any Republican could, even with the reparations enacted after his death, they have chosen to be the Democrats burden at this juncture in time,,, and as we all know they are the better for it.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000, thank you for answering part of the question.  Were you required to read Zinn and Chomsky in college?  Did you read the Bible, the Quran, Hitler, Lenin, Madison, Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Roosevelt (both of them), Lincoln, Marshall, Dreiser, Hart, James, Wolfe, Shelley, Byron, Keats (!), Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Ibsen, Proust, Pratchett, and hundreds of other writers?  You really think suppression of writers' works is the way to go, when I think, in all honesty, if your writers cannot combat their opponents, something is wrong with your point.  Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.



Jake, I did not go to College, from what I read, and learn, I understand that Chomsky and Zinn are used to teach. 

If you think Zinn is the material to be used to teach history I can effectively make the case that Zinn is not scholarly material to be used to teach. 

I wish to act like Hitler, Hitler and the National Socialist joined with the Communist party of Germany, Hitler with the cooperation of Gemany and many others in Europe murdered woman and children, how do you equate Germans actions to stating that Zinn has written poor books with no educational value, that Zinn and Chomsky's work is discredited by historical scholars. 

Zinn and Chomsky fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere, to compare not teaching garbage to Hitler shows how little understanding of history Jake has after reading Zinn and Chomsky.

I advocate reading books, I read books, I will pass on to others what I read, and have done so repeatedly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then go to college, learn the discipline of history and of pedagogy, and if you still don't like Zinn, don't use him.  I gave a call to a friend over at the U, and he says no one he knows there uses Zinn or Chomsky as models for teaching, but if they did, who could possibly care?

Only you are equating Zinn and Chomsky with Hitler, which is an incredible stretch of the imagination.

"Zinn and Chomsky fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere, to compare not teaching garbage to Hitler shows how little understanding of history Jake has after reading Zinn and Chomsky."  That makes absolutely no sense, mdn2000.  Now please: point out where the two "fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere. . .".  Does every scholar condemn the inadequacy of the two, or does one POV condemn them?

Historical research involves the objective collecting, sifting, and interpreting of a representative number of artificats to reach broad conclusions.  In other words, facts are not twisted to a preconceived philosophy; the philosophy, however, is twisted to fit the facts.

I hope you understand now what I wrote earlier and try to misinterpret, deliberately or not, what I am saying.


----------



## Jroc

You guys are going off topic here, the education I was  referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.





JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000, thank you for answering part of the question.  Were you required to read Zinn and Chomsky in college?  Did you read the Bible, the Quran, Hitler, Lenin, Madison, Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Roosevelt (both of them), Lincoln, Marshall, Dreiser, Hart, James, Wolfe, Shelley, Byron, Keats (!), Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Ibsen, Proust, Pratchett, and hundreds of other writers?  You really think suppression of writers' works is the way to go, when I think, in all honesty, if your writers cannot combat their opponents, something is wrong with your point.  Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.





JakeStarkey said:


> Then go to college, learn the discipline of history and of pedagogy, and if you still don't like Zinn, don't use him.  I gave a call to a friend over at the U, and he says no one he knows there uses Zinn or Chomsky as models for teaching, but if they did, who could possibly care?
> 
> Only you are equating Zinn and Chomsky with Hitler, which is an incredible stretch of the imagination.
> 
> "Zinn and Chomsky fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere, to compare not teaching garbage to Hitler shows how little understanding of history Jake has after reading Zinn and Chomsky."  That makes absolutely no sense, mdn2000.  Now please: point out where the two "fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere. . .".  Does every scholar condemn the inadequacy of the two, or does one POV condemn them?
> 
> Historical research involves the objective collecting, sifting, and interpreting of a representative number of artificats to reach broad conclusions.  In other words, facts are not twisted to a preconceived philosophy; the philosophy, however, is twisted to fit the facts.
> 
> I hope you understand now what I wrote earlier and try to misinterpret, deliberately or not, what I am saying.



As always Jake, when I must address your posts I must address about a thousand twists and turns. Personally I think you love being a prick.

I love that when Jake addresses a statement he does so by asking ten questions that must be answered.

Do I believe if writers works be surpressed? Jake do you think lies should be taught as history, yes or no.

Now you state something is wrong with my point if a writer can not combat their opponents. My point has nothing to with what a writer writes. My point is Zinn is not scholarly material to be used to teach history. My point does not fail because of what a writer has written and if that said writer can answer his critics. That is kind of a crazy way to support Chomsky and Zinn.



> Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz



Wow, stating books by Chomsky and Zinn should not be taught because they fail to to be factual is equated to acting as Hitler. Why compare me to Hitler, I simply want the truth taught as history, nothing more. That is not Chomsky or Zinn.



> Does every scholar condemn the inadequacy of the two, or does one POV condemn them?



The fact is simple, Chomsky and Zinn are not historic, scholarly works and only one point of view accepts Chomsky or Zinn's work as being historically accurate. They are both at best, hate directed against the USA.

If you wish to learn about Chomsky and Zinn you should pay for that with your money. If you are so familiar with the accuracy of Zinn and Chomsky, quote a few paragraphs and point out the accuracy. 

Chomsky and Zinn should not be taught as history, they should be taught as examples of poor scholarly work, as being of "one point of view", they should be taught as examples of people who hate the USA, its that simple.

Jake, so let me get this straight, you beleive Chomsky and Zinn should be used to teach history.


----------



## Jroc

Don't hijack the Thread!! You guys can start you're own damn thread. I wanted to keep this clear you guys are just mucking it up.


----------



## Jroc

mdn2000 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are going off topic here, the education I was  referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you started the thread does not mean you understand the topic, here your state the topic is primary education, I thought you were addressing who the allies of African Americans are, Zinn writes about this, are you ignorant of this or do you simply not want Zinn discussed. Further Zinn is read and used by many primary education professionals. Zinn is relevant to the topic.
> 
> Instead of being a prick about your thread and Private Messaging me with your bitching you should consider yourself lucky enough I posted in your "thread".
> 
> Have it your way, Jake, we can have this discussion in any other thread and I am more than happy to have this discussion.
> 
> A thread of Jroc's does not need our participation, no problem Jroc. I will simply ignore your thread.
Click to expand...


All right. I apologize I'm not really familiar with Zinn but try and make it pertain to African Americans specifically


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> You guys are going off topic here, the education I was  referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?



How?  You going to empower the fed even more to mandate such reform?  The best way to get the reform you want is to get the fed and state teacher education agencies out of the way.  The problem with that will be why they got into it in the first place; separate but equal facilities based on race.  We have similar problems now in that we have to make sure the leading families' and ranking school district officials' kids are not group into the same classrooms year after year in order to get superior education.  Three superintendents ago fought us on that, and it took more than a year to force him to leave.  We also lost three principals and a handful of senior administrators over the concept that their kids were no more special than those of the poorest families.

If you know how to return reform to the local level without the local elites trying to take over, let me know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 made a response.  I answered clearly and succinctly.  He then tried to dodge and then said we were messing up Jroc's thread.  Whatever.  mdn2000 does not like answering questions, but that is how discussions are developed.  (1) What lies are being taught as history, mdn2000?  (2) Do you agree that America is best served as a market place of competing ideas?  (3)  Who says Zinn is not to be taught in history classes?  (4) Can you point to exactly where I support Chomsky and Zinn?

mdn2000, as usual, makes wide, sweeping accusations that he can't support.  I don't have to refute them until you support your points.  So, shut up, mdn2000, until you can offer specific evidence for your points.  

Jroc, my apologies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, why to apologize mdn2000 when he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to Zinn.


----------



## mdn2000

Zinn, its simple Jake, if we are to have a discussion, do you state that Zinn's work should be used to teach history or not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, mdn2000, that is where you are screwing up.

You have made the assertion that Zinn's work is bad for teaching history.  Now you have to give your evidence for that assertion before you ask anyone to refute it.

Get going there, buddie, you got some work to do before you get back to us.


----------



## elvis




----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.



Jake, this is my statement, pure and simple. 

Do you have anything that refutes this other than to compare me to Hitler. 

Jake, do you support teaching Zinn's work as history.

Its a simple yes or no question, you have refused to answer this question. If you wish to engage me in a discussion I wish to know what you think of what we discuss, if you do not care to offer your opinion on Zinn that is your right. 

Jake, why avoid a simple question? I am will easily answer any question you ask, provided your willing to do the same.

Jake, do you support teaching the works of Howard Zinn in a class on history. Yes or no.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, this is my statement, pure and simple.
> 
> Do you have anything that refutes this other than to compare me to Hitler.
> 
> Jake, do you support teaching Zinn's work as history.
> 
> Its a simple yes or no question, you have refused to answer this question. If you wish to engage me in a discussion I wish to know what you think of what we discuss, if you do not care to offer your opinion on Zinn that is your right.
> 
> Jake, why avoid a simple question? I am will easily answer any question you ask, provided your willing to do the same.
> 
> Jake, do you support teaching the works of Howard Zinn in a class on history. Yes or no.
Click to expand...


mdn2000, you have offered a mere assertion.  That means nothing unless you give evidence for it, before you can ask others to refute it.  Don't you understand this.  You have lost the discussion if you don't do this. I don't have to offer anything at all until you offer proof for your assertion.  You don't have any, do you?


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are going off topic here, the education I was  referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?  You going to empower the fed even more to mandate such reform?  The best way to get the reform you want is to get the fed and state teacher education agencies out of the way.  The problem with that will be why they got into it in the first place; separate but equal facilities based on race.  We have similar problems now in that we have to make sure the leading families' and ranking school district officials' kids are not group into the same classrooms year after year in order to get superior education.  Three superintendents ago fought us on that, and it took more than a year to force him to leave.  We also lost three principals and a handful of senior administrators over the concept that their kids were no more special than those of the poorest families.
> 
> If you know how to return reform to the local level without the local elites trying to take over, let me know.
Click to expand...


We've got to start somewhere. Yes more local contro,l but there must be competition and the teachers must be held accountable for their success or failure. The teachers unions are just as elitist as the politicians, these kids are stuck in the same failing schools its a never-ending cycle.


----------



## BrianH

JakeStarkey said:


> I have dismissed the justifications you gave on the earlier points, none of which you were able to carry.  But I don't care about that.
> 
> What are vouchers going to do?  How do we get them in place?  How do we guarantee that "real history" is taught?
> 
> I am not attacking.  I want to know how we do this.



Real history is taught...but mostly in college.  The problem is getting people who don't value education, to value education and send their kids to college.


----------



## BrianH

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are going off topic here, the education I was  referring to is primary education, not so much secondary. This is were we need to start with education reform. Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?  You going to empower the fed even more to mandate such reform?  The best way to get the reform you want is to get the fed and state teacher education agencies out of the way.  The problem with that will be why they got into it in the first place; separate but equal facilities based on race.  We have similar problems now in that we have to make sure the leading families' and ranking school district officials' kids are not group into the same classrooms year after year in order to get superior education.  Three superintendents ago fought us on that, and it took more than a year to force him to leave.  We also lost three principals and a handful of senior administrators over the concept that their kids were no more special than those of the poorest families.
> 
> If you know how to return reform to the local level without the local elites trying to take over, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've got to start somewhere. Yes more local contro,l but there must be competition and the teachers must be held accountable for their success or failure. The teachers unions are just as elitist as the politicians, these kids are stuck in the same failing schools its a never-ending cycle.
Click to expand...


I agree on some of this, but not the last part about the teachers being elitist.  The teachers are already held to WAY to much accountability; accountability that the rational mind would think absurd.  1.  Teachers are paid like shit---maybe if we paid them more they would be better. 2. Teachers are treated like shit by administration---their disposable, so they don't feel wanted, thus performance lacks.  3.  Example:  (in my state) the 10th grade social studies test covers mostly U.S. History and geography.  10th graders here take World History...so their tested on something they haven't had yet or had in hunior high, and not what they were taught the present year.  And the teacher is judged based on that test, even though the subject matter he or she taught isn't on there....  4.  The school is "TIED" to government hand outs and "grants."  The school is held hostage by the federal and state governments based on standardized tests and attendance.  Schools are trying to walk a beaurocatic tight-rope to get more funding for their schools.  Rather than actually trying to educate the students, they're worried more about funding and teaching to the tests.

I taught high school for 2 1/2 years and must say that it was the worst job experience I have ever had.  The kids were wonderful, they were learning, and I had them hooked on social studies.   I had good repport with them and I had no problem controlling the classroom and teaching.  My problem came from retarded adminstration decisions and the mistreatement of teachers by the administration.  The pay sucked, teachers were treated more like students than professionals, and the administration NEVER backed up the teachers when confronted with problems from parents.  The parents always got their way even if they were wrong. 

I think their could be some major improvement on teacher training, however, I think making them accountable for more is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000, thank you for answering part of the question.  Were you required to read Zinn and Chomsky in college?  Did you read the Bible, the Quran, Hitler, Lenin, Madison, Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Roosevelt (both of them), Lincoln, Marshall, Dreiser, Hart, James, Wolfe, Shelley, Byron, Keats (!), Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Ibsen, Proust, Pratchett, and hundreds of other writers?  You really think suppression of writers' works is the way to go, when I think, in all honesty, if your writers cannot combat their opponents, something is wrong with your point.  Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.



I am acting as Hitler by stating that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky's books on history on not history as well as not worthy being taught in a history class. Hitler burned books that did not correspond with Nazi ideology. I admit, I do not like Howard Zinn's nor Noam Chomsky's books because they are ideological books, that Jake would argue to have ideological books used to teach simple history is more telling of Jakes ideology, the fact that Jake is quick to associate my ideology with Hitler's indicates that Jake is thinking as Hitler and is projecting, what Jake is himself he portrays others to be. 

Now Jake you can take your customary victim tactic, and show the injustice I just perpetrated, go ahead and stomp your feet and private message me. Go ahead and demand to point out where you stated this. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Then go to college, learn the discipline of history and of pedagogy, and if you still don't like Zinn, don't use him.  I gave a call to a friend over at the U, and he says no one he knows there uses Zinn or Chomsky as models for teaching, but if they did, who could possibly care?
> 
> Only you are equating Zinn and Chomsky with Hitler, which is an incredible stretch of the imagination.
> 
> "Zinn and Chomsky fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere, to compare not teaching garbage to Hitler shows how little understanding of history Jake has after reading Zinn and Chomsky."  That makes absolutely no sense, mdn2000.  Now please: point out where the two "fail on their own, as pointed out everywhere. . .".  Does every scholar condemn the inadequacy of the two, or does one POV condemn them?
> 
> Historical research involves the objective collecting, sifting, and interpreting of a representative number of artificats to reach broad conclusions.  In other words, facts are not twisted to a preconceived philosophy; the philosophy, however, is twisted to fit the facts.
> 
> I hope you understand now what I wrote earlier and try to misinterpret, deliberately or not, what I am saying.



What are you saying Jake, I have asked a question of you three times, you dodge the answer. What in the hell are you stating here, is this all historical work or some, all history involves an interpetation of philosophy, oh, and you spoke with a freind, a man who teaches and you feel you must state what your freind said, how about not dodging and answering.

Should Howard Zinn's work be taught as history.



JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 made a response.  I answered clearly and succinctly.  He then tried to dodge and then said we were messing up Jroc's thread.  Whatever.  mdn2000 does not like answering questions, but that is how discussions are developed.  (1) What lies are being taught as history, mdn2000?  (2) Do you agree that America is best served as a market place of competing ideas?  (3)  Who says Zinn is not to be taught in history classes?  (4) Can you point to exactly where I support Chomsky and Zinn?
> 
> mdn2000, as usual, makes wide, sweeping accusations that he can't support.  I don't have to refute them until you support your points.  So, shut up, mdn2000, until you can offer specific evidence for your points.
> 
> Jroc, my apologies.



Jake you never answered, you compared me to Hitler, where in that first response is any kind of answer to any kind of question?



JakeStarkey said:


> No, mdn2000, that is where you are screwing up.
> 
> You have made the assertion that Zinn's work is bad for teaching history.  Now you have to give your evidence for that assertion before you ask anyone to refute it.
> 
> Get going there, buddie, you got some work to do before you get back to us.



I have yet to ask you to refute Zinn, I merely asked you if Zinn should be taught. Show me where I have yet to demand or even ask that you refute Zinn or Chomsky.

Again, should Zinn's work be taught as history Jake. 



JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, on real history being taught, first we must throw out all the books by Chomsky and Zinn and fire all the teachers who have taught Zinn and Chomsky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, this is my statement, pure and simple.
> 
> Do you have anything that refutes this other than to compare me to Hitler.
> 
> Jake, do you support teaching Zinn's work as history.
> 
> Its a simple yes or no question, you have refused to answer this question. If you wish to engage me in a discussion I wish to know what you think of what we discuss, if you do not care to offer your opinion on Zinn that is your right.
> 
> Jake, why avoid a simple question? I am will easily answer any question you ask, provided your willing to do the same.
> 
> Jake, do you support teaching the works of Howard Zinn in a class on history. Yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mdn2000, you have offered a mere assertion.  That means nothing unless you give evidence for it, before you can ask others to refute it.  Don't you understand this.  You have lost the discussion if you don't do this. I don't have to offer anything at all until you offer proof for your assertion.  You don't have any, do you?
Click to expand...


Jake, I made a post I am easily able to defend, after you stated that my actions are the same as Hitler or Stalin I asked a question of you. That is all.

I want to know what you personal position is Jake. Now I want to know more, I am more than happy to educate you, again, and again. You can jump and down all you want that I am wrong before I state my facts, for I have not made an assertion, I have stated a fact, Zinn is not a historical scholar and should not be taught. 

Of course "The Howard Zinn Project", will disagree with me, but that is getting ahead of the conversation. Jake, I understand you want to claim your ideology the winner without ever stating your position, that is a nice luxury if I allow it. I also understand you want to declare your ideology and your belief in Zinn true without ever having to address your position, another nice luxury if I allow it.

So, Jake, you either care to disucss Zinn and your knowledge of Zinn or you do not.

I almost have to beleive you know nothing about Howard Zinn.

So if you care to discuss this with me, great, lets talk, I asked you a question, if you do not care to answer my questions when I have them I do not care to discuss this with you. 

Do you Jake think Howard Zinn's work should be taught in a history class.
Have you read Howard Zinn?


----------



## uscitizen

Chomsky did a far better analysis of the situation in Iran and Afganistan than our government did.


----------



## mdn2000

uscitizen said:


> Chomsky did a far better analysis of the situation in Iran and Afganistan than our government did.



After the fact or before.


----------



## JakeStarkey

[/QUOTE] 





> *mdn2000 cannot and will not defend his assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in the history classroom *



mdn2000 really wants me to rebut an assertion with evidence although he refuses to support his assertion.  He clearly can't defend it.

Here, mdn200, this will help you support your assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history classes: How to debate effectively and rationally.


----------



## mdn2000

> *mdn2000 cannot and will not defend his assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in the history classroom *



mdn2000 really wants me to rebut an assertion with evidence although he refuses to support his assertion.  He clearly can't defend it.

Here, mdn200, this will help you support your assertion that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history classes: How to debate effectively and rationally.[/QUOTE]

Still dodging and telling a lie Jake, why do you refuse to answer a simple question.

Should Zinn's work be used as material to teach history.

Jake, have you read Zinn.

Its simple Jake, if you wish to discuss something with me and know what I know you need to be a bit civil, that means if I ask a question to clarify for me, how you feel, you should answer, its the civil thing to do.

Jake, you seem to be ashamed of who you are otherwise why do you dodge simple questions which do not even determine if I am right or wrong.

Jake, should Zinn's work be used as material to teach history and how is that a question demanding you to prove the validity of Zinn's work.

Jake, if this simple question is so confusing, you keep characterizing this question as something it is not.

Is it your position Jake that Zinn's work should be used as material to teach history.


----------



## Jroc

BrianH said:


> I agree on some of this, but not the last part about the teachers being elitist.  The teachers are already held to WAY to much accountability; accountability that the rational mind would think absurd.  1.  Teachers are paid like shit---maybe if we paid them more they would be better. 2. Teachers are treated like shit by administration---their disposable, so they don't feel wanted, thus performance lacks.  3.  Example:  (in my state) the 10th grade social studies test covers mostly U.S. History and geography.  10th graders here take World History...so their tested on something they haven't had yet or had in hunior high, and not what they were taught the present year.  And the teacher is judged based on that test, even though the subject matter he or she taught isn't on there....  4.  The school is "TIED" to government hand outs and "grants."  *The school is held hostage by the federal and state governments based on standardized tests and attendance.  Schools are trying to walk a beaurocatic tight-rope to get more funding for their schools.  Rather than actually trying to educate the students, they're worried more about funding and teaching to the tests.*I taught high school for 2 1/2 years and must say that it was the worst job experience I have ever had.  The kids were wonderful, they were learning, and I had them hooked on social studies.   I had good repport with them and I had no problem controlling the classroom and teaching.  My problem came from retarded adminstration decisions and the mistreatement of teachers by the administration.  The pay sucked, teachers were treated more like students than professionals, and the administration NEVER backed up the teachers when confronted with problems from parents.  The parents always got their way even if they were wrong.
> 
> I think their could be some major improvement on teacher training, however, I think making them accountable for more is a bit of a stretch.




Actually I was not talking about individual teachers as being elitist, I'm saying the teachers unions and all unions for that matter. The NEA is not focused on the Children, all they are worried about is the benefits they can get for the teachers. There are good and bad teachers, but they are all lumped into the same group by the unions. It doesn't matter how well they do their job, that's what mean by accountability. I defiantly agree that the federal government should get out of the business of educating our kids.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.

If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.

Guns and Roses, at least, is trying to say 'why' instead of making an assertion that calling on others to tell him why he is wrong.  If he tried that in college, he would fail.   If he tried that in business, he would be terminated.  If he tried that in the military, he would be court martialed or given nonjudicial administrative punishment.

Defend your assertion, mdn2000, or you have lost.  No one who understands how discussion works is going to defend your approach.


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.
> 
> If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.



they should be used as a "Here's the opposing view."  then maybe also include a neocon author like Kaplan.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.
> 
> If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they should be used as a "Here's the opposing view."  then maybe also include a neocon author like Kaplan.
Click to expand...


That would have been sensible.

A.  Assertion and evidence that Ziin and Chomsky are wrong

B.  Counter assertion and evidence for Zinn and Chomsky

C.  Why mdn2000's premise is correct


----------



## Jroc

History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.


----------



## elvis

there's more to history than just facts and dates.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.



Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.


----------



## Jroc

elvis said:


> there's more to history than just facts and dates.



Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's more to history than just facts and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
Click to expand...


The interpretation of those facts and dates in context is part of the role of the teacher, who must objective and not indoctrinate.  For instance, the Republicans freed the slaves although the party membership was generally racist.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.
Click to expand...


Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?


----------



## elvis

Jroc said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's more to history than just facts and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
Click to expand...


Not what I said.  The study of history attempts to answer three questions:

1. What happened? 

2.  Why did it happen? 

3.  Should it have happened?  

Teachers should present the facts and then show the opposing viewpoints in an attempt to get the students to answer questions 2 and 3 for themselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> History is history, facts are facts, and history should be thought without all the ideological bias. I'll bet most kids don't even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, they don't know the history of the Republican Party, and that white Republicans were lynched because of their pushing for the rights of African Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?
Click to expand...


The pitched battles of black and white Republicans with the Democrat redemptionists are not lynchings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's more to history than just facts and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  The study of history attempts to answer three questions:
> 
> 1. What happened?
> 
> 2.  Why did it happen?
> 
> 3.  Should it have happened?
> 
> Teachers should present the facts and then show the opposing viewpoints in an attempt to get the students to answer questions 2 and 3 for themselves.
Click to expand...


Just so.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a few were lynched, but most Republicans of Lincoln's time were overwhelmingly racist, wanting slavery and African Americans gone because the system and those workers threatened the opportunities of white economic opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? over 1200 were lynched is that a few to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pitched battles of black and white Republicans with the Democrat redemptionists are not lynchings.
Click to expand...


So you didn't even watch the video I posted..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzJ2RIlUwE[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period from 1865 to 1876.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period from 1865 to 1876.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.



Yeah ...ok the history didn't stop at 1865, and I seem to remember you not understanding the 3/5th clause in the Constitution, yet you presume to tell me what I don't know? Please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period *from 1865 to 1876*.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ...ok the history didn't stop at 1865, and I seem to remember you not understanding the 3/5th clause in the Constitution, yet you presume to tell me what I don't know? Please.
Click to expand...


Please read what I wrote above.

And, yes, 3/5ths clause granted the southern states increased representation in congress in return for agreeing to import tariffs that the southerners would later scream about.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period *from 1865 to 1876*.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ...ok the history didn't stop at 1865, and I seem to remember you not understanding the 3/5th clause in the Constitution, yet you presume to tell me what I don't know? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read what I wrote above.
> 
> And, yes, 3/5ths clause granted the southern states increased representation in congress in return for agreeing to import tariffs that the southerners would later scream about.
Click to expand...



The clause limited the power of the southern states who wanted to count slaves as a full person (while still keeeping them as slaves) in order to increase their representation in congress. and I'm not limiting the lynchings to only the  reconstructionist period.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 states that Zinn and Chomsky should not be used in history class, but won't tell us, but he wants me to refudiate his position.
> 
> If he can't support it, I don't have to rebut it.
> 
> Guns and Roses, at least, is trying to say 'why' instead of making an assertion that calling on others to tell him why he is wrong.  If he tried that in college, he would fail.   If he tried that in business, he would be terminated.  If he tried that in the military, he would be court martialed or given nonjudicial administrative punishment.
> 
> Defend your assertion, mdn2000, or you have lost.  No one who understands how discussion works is going to defend your approach.



Jake, where have I asked you to refudiate my position, quote it.
I ask you what your position is, you refuse to answer, a simple question, what are you afraid of Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, lynchings occurred after Reconstruction until the 1950s.  More than 5,000 happened, about 85% of the were African American.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, lynchings occurred after Reconstruction until the 1950s.  More than 5,000 happened, about 85% of the were African American.



ok..I don't believe there were any white Democrats lynched, but there were 1300 white Republicans Lynched, so I guess that says something.... doesn't it


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, lynchings occurred after Reconstruction until the 1950s.  More than 5,000 happened, about 85% of the were African American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok..I don't believe there were any white Democrats lynched, but there were 1300 white Republicans Lynched, so I guess that says something.... doesn't it
Click to expand...


I am sure a few Dem whites were lynched, but that 1300 includes the battles, raids, and murders during the Reconstruction.  About 700 to 800 whites were lynched after 1880, and I imagine some of them were Republicans.  The problem is trying to determine if some were lynched because their were Republican or for aiding the blacks or for both or because they did something the town didn't like.

I think the premise that a white Republican in the South was probably more likely than a white Democrat in the South to be lynched.  And I imagine that group of whites moved into the Democratic Party after 1964 as racist Democrats moved into the Republican Party in the South.


----------



## mdn2000

Jroc said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's more to history than just facts and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
Click to expand...


Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.

Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism. 

Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's more to history than just facts and dates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
Click to expand...


All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.

If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.
> 
> If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.
Click to expand...


I am glad we are on the same page, at least a little, how about Zinn, should we use Zinn's material to teach history or any subject. I say no, what do you say Jake.

Is my question that dangerous, it seems simple to me. You think I am setting you up, don't you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have not made a case for Zinn or Chomsky.  When you do, I will respond.

You fail intellectually and morally to call for rebuttal to an assertion without support.  If you did this in the Army, you would be disciplined; if you did it in a business meeting, you would be counseled or fired; if you did this in a college presentation, you would fail.

Give your evidence.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> You have not made a case for Zinn or Chomsky.  When you do, I will respond.
> 
> You fail intellectually and morally to call for rebuttal to an assertion without support.  If you did this in the Army, you would be disciplined; if you did it in a business meeting, you would be counseled or fired; if you did this in a college presentation, you would fail.
> 
> Give your evidence.



If I did this in the military, lets try and see, "Private Jake, come here now, Private Jake do you support this, yes or no, Private Jake, this is a direct order, Private Jake I charge you with conduct unbecoming and refusing an order from a non commissioned officer. "

Looks like you lose Jake. 

Business meeting lets see, "Jake, do you support using the new technical manual, yes or no," seems you lose again Jake.

So now I must assume, Jake supports using Howard Zinn as a primary source to teach History. 

Is that correct Jake, you support using Howard Zinn. 

If I did this in a College presentation, now you have gone off the very deep end Jake, first you call me Hitler, now you compare a simple comment as something someone would do at a College presentation.

Is that your argument. 

Jake, your are laughable, you are fighting for Howard Zinn, why do you like Howard Zinn Jake.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.
> 
> If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.
Click to expand...


You gurantee that those who teach ideology would not be rehired, what is your proof of your assertion?

Here is a tiny bit on Zinn, as you state above, Zinn should not be taught because of Zinn's views on using ones profession to advance ideology

Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist




> SECRECY, ARCHIVES, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
> 
> HOWARD ZINN
> 
> Let me work my way in from the great circle of the world to us at the center by discussing, in turn, three things: the social role of the professional in modern times; the scholar in the United States today; and the archivist here and now.
> 
> Professionalism is a powerful form of social control. By professionalism I mean the almost total immersion in one's craft, being so absorbed in the day-to-day exercise of those skills, as to have little time, energy, or will to consider what part those skills play in the total social scheme
> 
> ..........................................................
> 
> By social control I mean maintaining things as they are, preserving traditional arrangements, preventing any sharp change in how the society distributes wealth and power.
> 
> There were few professionals in the old days. Now they are everywhere, and their skills, their knowledge, could be a threat to the status quo. But their will to challenge the going order is constantly weakened by rewards of money and position. And they are so divided, so preoccupied with their particular specialities, as to spend most of
> their time smoothing, tightening their tiny piece of linkage in the social machine. This leaves very little time or energy to worry about whether the machine is designed for war or peace, for social need or individual profits, to help us or to poison us.
> 
> ......................................
> 
> Equally important for social control as the military scientists are those professionals who are connected with the dissemination of knowledge in society: the teachers, the historians, the political scientists, the. journalists, and yes, the archivists
> 
> .....................
> 
> However, if any of these specialists in the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge were to walk over to another part of the playpen, the one marked political sociology, and read Karl Mannheim, who in Ideology and Utopia, points out following Marx, of course, but it is more prudent to cite Mannheim)( that knowledge has a social origin and a social use. It comes out of a divided, embattled world, and is poured into such a world. It is not neutral either in origin or effect. It reflects the bias of a particular social order; more accurately, it reflects the diverse biases of a diverse social order, but with one important qualification: that those with the most power and wealth in society will dominate the field of knowledge, so that it serves their interests. The scholar may swear to his neutrality on the job, but whether he be physicist, historian, or archivist, his work will tend, in this theory, to maintain the existing social order by perpetuating its values, by legitimizing its priorities, by justifying its wars, perpetuating its prejudices, contributing to its xenophobia, and apologizing for its class order
> 
> ...........................
> 
> 
> Now maybe we have not been oblivious to this idea that the professional scholars in any society tend to buttress the existing social order and values of that society. But we have tended to attribute this to other societies, or other times or other professions. Not the United States. Not now. Not here. Not us. It was easy to detect the control of the German scholars or the Russian scholars-but much harder to recognize that the high school texts of our own country have fostered jingoism, war heroes, the Sambo approach to the black man, the vision of the Indian as savage, and the notion that white Western Civilization is the cultural, humanistic summit of man's time on earth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a case for Zinn or Chomsky.  When you do, I will respond.
> 
> You fail intellectually and morally to call for rebuttal to an assertion without support.  If you did this in the Army, you would be disciplined; if you did it in a business meeting, you would be counseled or fired; if you did this in a college presentation, you would fail.
> 
> Give your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I did this in the military, lets try and see, "Private Jake, come here now, Private Jake do you support this, yes or no, Private Jake, this is a direct order, Private Jake I charge you with conduct unbecoming and refusing an order from a non commissioned officer. "
> 
> Looks like you lose Jake.
> 
> Business meeting lets see, "Jake, do you support using the new technical manual, yes or no," seems you lose again Jake.
> 
> So now I must assume, Jake supports using Howard Zinn as a primary source to teach History.
> 
> Is that correct Jake, you support using Howard Zinn.
> 
> If I did this in a College presentation, now you have gone off the very deep end Jake, first you call me Hitler, now you compare a simple comment as something someone would do at a College presentation.
> 
> Is that your argument.
> 
> Jake, your are laughable, you are fighting for Howard Zinn, why do you like Howard Zinn Jake.
Click to expand...


 You can't post an argument against Zinn.  Your claim, bud, defend it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.

Zinn states the marxist observation that entrenched social orders, in America's case he means the wealthy and powerful, will use teachers and professors to enhance their position.  I am sure this is true in America, was true in USSR, is true in China, and is true in Iran.  Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right.  In other words, *the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.*


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> Zinn states the marxist observation that entrenched social orders, in America's case he means the wealthy and powerful, will use teachers and professors to enhance their position.  I am sure this is true in America, was true in USSR, is true in China, and is true in Iran.  Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right.  In other words, *the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.*



First and foremost Jake you demonstrate you have no understanding of what I posted, this is not an article, had you followed the link you could of seen it was speech. Jake, I posted only a part of the speech. 

Jake, I posted a portion of the speech, per the rules of the USMB, I did not cut and paste the complete speech. As you noted I could of added commentary, why, Howard Zinn as an Author, a Scholar, a Political Activitist (and as Jake previously stated) should be able to stand on their own. People can make their own determination as to Howard Zinn. Jake, we do not need you to attempt to define what Zinn meant in this speech, you have proven that Jake has a preconcieved idea as to my motives, even now, your defending Marxism, showing how Zinn was far from a Marxist when I have not asserted that Zinn is a Marxsit. Anyhow, Jake is wrong. Its too simple.

Lets examine how a person who heard the speech reacted, for this speech is posted by a person listening to Howard Zinn, so this is how this person interpetted and reacted to the words and advice of Howard Zinn.

Howard Zinn was a political activitist. 

Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist



> Right now I am in library school, training to be an archivist, so I'm posting this speech that Howard Zinn made about the archivist profession which has really inspired me. Lately the idea of taking a political position within the profession is something that I have been thinking about a lot


----------



## mdn2000

What is this person's Political Ideology. That becomes a very important point. This is about Zinn, Jake I hope you do not think I wish to define Zinn with just one speech or article that Zinn wrote. 

Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist



> Those in the archivist profession should fight for open access to information, and to protect and make accessible materials documenting the histories of people that have traditionally been silenced and marginalized. I think Zinn's speech is just as relevant today as it is when he presented it and it was published in the 1970s. We still live in an age of information secrecy and repression, and corporate ownership. Simultaneously the Internet has made it possible for people to spread information on a massive scale whether it is classified documents or a bootlegged movie. Ignoring intellectual property rights may be viewed as an act of rebellion, even though the average person may not consciously think about the act of file sharing as a form of resistance. The degree to which archivists participate in acts of resistance is something I wish to explore further.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> Zinn states the marxist observation that entrenched social orders, in America's case he means the wealthy and powerful, will use teachers and professors to enhance their position.  I am sure this is true in America, was true in USSR, is true in China, and is true in Iran.  Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right.  In other words, *the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost Jake you demonstrate you have no understanding of what I posted,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know that you are mischaracterizing my understanding of the speech and Zinn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is not an article, had you followed the link you could of seen it was speech. Jake, I posted only a part of the speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An ineffective and deceitful tactic by both the far right and the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake has a preconcieved idea as to my motives, even now, your defending Marxism, showing how Zinn was far from a Marxist when I have not asserted that Zinn is a Marxsit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you lie.  Show where I defended marxism above.  Show us where I suggested "Zinn was far from a Marxist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <snip: this is irrelevant until mdn2000 admits his lies and corrects his statements>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I am in library school, training to be an archivist, so I'm posting this speech that Howard Zinn made about the archivist profession which has really inspired me. Lately the idea of taking a political position within the profession is something that I have been thinking about a lot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need good archivists, and I am sure that your instructors will counsel you about the profession carefully.
> 
> 1.  It's good that you are finally posting attempts to support your premises.  2. Correct you lies or show where I have done what you have accused me of doing.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> What is this person's Political Ideology. That becomes a very important point. This is about Zinn, Jake I hope you do not think I wish to define Zinn with just one speech or article that Zinn wrote.
> 
> <snip: unimportant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those in the archivist profession should fight for open access to information, and to protect and make accessible materials documenting the histories of people that have traditionally been silenced and marginalized. I think Zinn's speech is just as relevant today as it is when he presented it and it was published in the 1970s. We still live in an age of information secrecy and repression, and corporate ownership. Simultaneously the Internet has made it possible for people to spread information on a massive scale whether it is classified documents or a bootlegged movie. Ignoring intellectual property rights may be viewed as an act of rebellion, even though the average person may not consciously think about the act of file sharing as a form of resistance. The degree to which archivists participate in acts of resistance is something I wish to explore further.
Click to expand...


It is good you are reading about Zinn.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> Zinn states the marxist observation that entrenched social orders, in America's case he means the wealthy and powerful, will use teachers and professors to enhance their position.  I am sure this is true in America, was true in USSR, is true in China, and is true in Iran.  Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right.  In other words, *the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.*



Nice Jake, before I state a thing about the ariticle or Zinn's speech, Jake states I do not understand it. That is a bit much is it not Jake, you have your mind made up that I do not know a thing, you have used how many posts stating I am wrong when I had yet to post a thing about Howard Zinn, as soon as I post Jake is quick to state I am wrong, I do not understand the article, yet I have yet to say a thing about the article or speech. Jake, it seems your a bit full of shit, in my opinion.



JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.
> 
> If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.
Click to expand...


Jake, I understand there are Liberals, there are Marxist, I also understand that people can pretend to be a Liberal while being a Marxist. If you care to make the assertion a Liberal is never a Marxist nor vice versa make your arguement, simply because Jake says it aint so does not make it not so.

It's not the Marxist that calls for removing Huck Finn from the Library, if you care to make this assertion go ahead, prove your point. It is possible that a Marxist working as a librarian could "damage" a book they do not like and remove it from the shelf. I think that is what Howard Zinn means when Howard Zinn tells people to be politcally active as they choose how to do their job.

Jake, how can you gurantee teachers or professionals within the universities would not be rehired if they secretly were pushing Marxism while they did their job. That is your opinion, nothing more. 



JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right.  In other words, *the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that you are mischaracterizing my understanding of the speech and Zinn.
> 
> An ineffective and deceitful tactic by both the far right and the far left.
> 
> Again you lie.  Show where I defended marxism above.  Show us where I suggested "Zinn was far from a Marxist".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I am in library school, training to be an archivist, so I'm posting this speech that Howard Zinn made about the archivist profession which has really inspired me. Lately the idea of taking a political position within the profession is something that I have been thinking about a lot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need good archivists, and I am sure that your instructors will counsel you about the profession carefully.
> 
> 1.  It's good that you are finally posting attempts to support your premises.  2. Correct you lies or show where I have done what you have accused me of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, you do realize that I am not in school to be an Archivist, the person who posted Zinn's speech is in school or was in school to be an Archivist. Did you read the article and the speech? You are a bit confused, it is not me in school.
> 
> The person who posted the speech specifically states they are taking a Policial position as an archivist. Zinn inspired this person, not to be neutral, but to advance a political ideology by how they do their job. That is what the article is about.
Click to expand...


----------



## Care4all

Jroc said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
Click to expand...


are you saying a black woman does not DECIDE FOR HERSELF on whether she bears the fruit of her womb and some white democrat forced her to choose an abortion?  

that's pretty presumptuous on your part, if so....


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.
> 
> If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.
Click to expand...




> Extending the concept then, the scholar and teacher in America must be on guard against parroting the agenda-driven activism of the far left and the far right. In other words, the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.



This is not what Howard Zinn is saying, this is not the "meaning" of the Howard Zinn's speech. Howard Zinn is clear;

Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist



> The archivist, even more than the historian and the political scientist, tends to be scrupulous about his neutrality, and to see his job as a technical job, free from the nasty world of political interest: a job of collecting, sorting, preserving, making available, the records of the society. But I will stick by what I have said about other scholars, and argue that the archivist, in subtle ways, tends to perpetuate the political and economic status quo simply by going about his ordinary business. His supposed neutrality is, in other words, a fake.



Howard Zinn states the archivist is not neutral.



> If so, the rebellion of the archivist against his normal role is not, as so many scholars fear, the politicizing of a neutral craft, but the humanizing of an inevitably political craft. Scholarship in society is inescapably political. Our choice is not between being political or not. Our choice is to follow the politics of the going order, that is, to do our job within the priorities and directions set by the dominant forces of society, or else to promote those human values of peace, equality, and justice, which our present society denies



Here is a nice little bit from Howard Zinn's speech that makes Howard Zinn's position very clear.



> However, if any of these specialists in the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge were to walk over to another part of the playpen, the one marked political sociology, and read Karl Mannheim, who in Ideology and Utopia, points out (following Marx, of course, but it is more prudent to cite Mannheim) that knowledge has a social origin and a social use.



Zinn tells us to read Karl Mannheim, but Zinn is also quick that the idea comes from Marx, of course Karl Mannheim studiend and was infuenced by Marx, as Zinn has. Howard Zinn is showing part of his politically ideology and referencing Mannheim instead of Marx, due to "prudence".

So to know Zinn one must read Ideology and Utopia,

Mannheim, Karl



> The conception of human nature that prevails in Ideology and Utopia is one of reason, mediation, and self-reflection. Indeed, "scientific critical self-awareness" on the part of those who work in the social sciences presupposes a certain attribute of the mind, an awareness of the relationship between social structure and systems of thought. This is not to argue that all those participating in social processes are doomed to falsify reality. Nor must they somehow suspend their value judgments and will to action. Instead, Mannheim held that to participate knowingly in social life presupposes that one can understand the often hidden nature of thought about society. Human beings have the potential for self-examination and contextual awareness. And only when these are understood can one have a comprehension of the formal object under study (Mannheim [1936] 1968:46-47...).
> 
> Simply put, there is a point in time, a moment of truth, when "the inner connection between our role, our motivations, and our type and manner of experiencing the world suddenly dawns upon us" ([1936] 1968:47). To be sure, some level of social determinism is real, for sociologists and all those who seek to unravel the puzzles of social life (including the puzzle of knowledge itself). None of us is free to exercise some metaphysical power of will.  However, to the extent that one uses the power of reason to gain insight into the sources of such determinism, to that extent a relative freedom from determinism is possible. It follows that this potential for simultaneously comprehending self, the socio-historical context, and the object to be analyzed must be realized (especially by sociologists).
> 
> Certain assumptions concerning the nature of society remain constant throughout Mannheim's work. He returned again and again to the themes of conflict: of classes (and their systems of thought), of political movements, and of the necessary dissenting role of the intelligentsia. He addressed, as well shall see, the wider ground of the sociology of knowledge, but within that generality, he considered the specific question of ideological structure. However, for Mannheim the "ideological structure does not change independently of the class structure and the class structure does not change independently of the economic structure" ([1936] 1968:130).
> 
> This sense of the "structural totality of society" Mannheim attributed to Marx. He built his theoretical system on the threefold structural tendencies of Marx's earlier body of thought: first of all, that the mode of material production shapes the political sphere (and the rest of the "superstructure"); second, that change in the material base is closely connected with "transformations in class relations" and corresponding shifts in power; and third, that idea structures may dominate people at any historical period, but that these ideologies may be understood and their change predicted theoretically.
> 
> Nevertheless, unlike Marx, who emphasized that the ideas of the ruling class prevailed, Mannheim held that class-divided societies contain a special stratum for "those individuals whose only capital consisted in their education" ([1936] 1968:156). As this stratum comes to draw from different classes, it will contain contradictory points of view. Hence, the social position of intellectuals is not merely a question of their class origin. Its "multiformity" provides the "potential energy" for members of the intellectual stratum to develop a social sensibility and to grasp the dynamic and conflicting forces of society ([1936] 1968:156-157).



Jake, as far as the pettiness, you started it, I can let it go, its not that big of a deal, get over yourself, Howard Zinn is an awful big topic, I still have to tie this into the propaganda that "Republicans are not freinds of the African American". I aint got time to massage your hurt feelings Jake, in my opinion Jake likes to play the victim. Just how I read your posts Jake, sorry if that is not correct, its just how your posts read.


----------



## mdn2000

Jroc said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need a lesson in Margaret Sanger and Eugenics
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | The Truth About Margaret Sanger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
> 
> Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just to bring everything full circle and back to the topic of this thread, how about a little praise by Howard Zinn to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margeret Sanger.
> 
> Discovering John Reed by Howard Zinn excerpted from the book Howard Zinn on History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was bad enough that they and their remarkable friends-Max Eastman, Emma Goldman, Lincoln Steffens, Margaret Sanger- spoke out for sexual freedom in a country dominated by Christian righteousness, or opposed militarization in a time of jingoism and war, or advocated socialism when business and government were clubbing and shooting strikers, or welcomed what seemed to them the first proletarian revolution in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is from an article where Howard Zinn is praising John Reed, a Marxist. At least that is my opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

> Nice Jake, before I state a thing about the ariticle or Zinn's speech, Jake states I do not understand it


 mdn2000 does not understand Zinn, that is correct.



> Jake, I understand there are Liberals, there are Marxist, I also understand that people can pretend to be a Liberal while being a Marxist. If you care to make the assertion a Liberal is never a Marxist nor vice versa make your arguement, simply because Jake says it aint so does not make it not so.


  Please point out where I said such a thing.




> It's not the Marxist that calls for removing Huck Finn from the Library, if you care to make this assertion go ahead,


  Please point out where I said such a thing.




> prove your point. It is possible that a Marxist working as a librarian could "damage" a book they do not like and remove it from the shelf. I think that is what Howard Zinn means when Howard Zinn tells people to be politcally active as they choose how to do their job.


 I suppose a Marxist librarian or a Tea Bag archivist could do such a thing.



> how can you gurantee teachers or professionals within the universities would not be rehired if they secretly were pushing Marxism while they did their job. That is your opinion, nothing more.


 What opinion?  You are confused as usual.  But I agree with you that Marxist or Tea Bag librarians or archivists working secretly their nefarious art to deceive may well escape detection.



> Jake, you do realize that I am not in school to be an Archivist, the person who posted Zinn's speech is in school or was in school to be an Archivist.


  Either you poorly copied and paste or you lied.  The post as you did it clearly reflects that you were studying to be an archivist.  I am glad that you are not studying that art.

I do have a question.  Why do you want to be like Zinn or Alisky or Rush?  You follow all of their procedures.


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you saying a black woman does not DECIDE FOR HERSELF on whether she bears the fruit of her womb and some white democrat forced her to choose an abortion?
> 
> that's pretty presumptuous on your part, if so....
Click to expand...


I'm saying the democrat party as sold out to the pro- abortion movement and that as been detrimental to African Americans in general . Their abortion rate is 4 times that of whites, and since most blacks have sold out to the democrat party, they don't address this issue, They simply ignore it and then claim Republicans to be racist. Check out the history of Planned Parenthood and checkout were most of their clinics are located abortions are big money.


----------



## High_Gravity

People say black women have the highest abortion rates but at the same time if these same black women kept the children and were unable to care for them and went on welfare and food stamps, people would still complain. It seems like a lose/lose situation.


----------



## High_Gravity

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress-Frederick Douglass


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost Jake you demonstrate you have no understanding of what I posted, this is not an article, had you followed the link you could of seen it was speech. Jake, I posted only a part of the speech.
> 
> Lets examine how a person who heard the speech reacted, for this speech is posted by a person listening to Howard Zinn, so this is how this person interpetted and reacted to the words and advice of Howard Zinn.
> 
> Howard Zinn was a political activitist.
> 
> Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now I am in library school, training to be an archivist, so I'm posting this speech that Howard Zinn made about the archivist profession which has really inspired me. Lately the idea of taking a political position within the profession is something that I have been thinking about a lot
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Jake, you do realize that I am not in school to be an Archivist, the person who posted Zinn's speech is in school or was in school to be an Archivist.
> 
> 
> 
> Either you poorly copied and paste or you lied.  The post as you did it clearly reflects that you were studying to be an archivist.  I am glad that you are not studying that art.
Click to expand...


Jake, there it is, Jake it seems clear to me you have a ready made defense of Howard Zinn that Jake used without knowing what was posted, as if what is posted is irrelevant. Jake before I posted Zinn's speech you stated I was wrong, that I could not support what I asserted, I asserted that Zinn's teaching material is not suitable to be used to teach history. Jake you have shown your simply stomping and stammering, this was Jakes defense without knowing or reading Zinn's own words. One thing I notice Jake is that Jake cuts off everything another person posts after which Jake replies to something never said or posted.

Even here Jake when I point out you made a gross error you deny you made a mistake or that you have no idea what Zinn stated. It is clear Jake, what I posted came from the article, it has the link right above the quote, nothing is as clear as that. Jake if you cannot remember that or understand that, does Jake think Jake has demonstrated that Jake read and understood Howard Zinn's speech. 

Jake you demonstrated Jake does not understand what Howard Zinn stated to the Archivist. Jake, Howard Zinn is an extreme, far, left, liberal, political activist who instructed professionals (artist as Jake calls the government worker in the university library) to advance Liberalism as well as read Marx, read Marx to put their job and role as a professional in perspective.

Jake, its nice to see that in your last post, you have no "debate" to support your assertions and misperceptions. If you were on the college debate team Jake, you would be third string. Jake if you were in the military you would always be a non-rate. Jake, in business you would be thanked for the coffee and donuts.

Jake, that was an example of how Jake could of been a bit more creative, hope Jake does not mind I stole from Jake's idea and made it better.


----------



## High_Gravity

I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety-Frederick Douglass


----------



## mdn2000

The Black GOP consists of the great Walter Williams, a black professor, who co-hosts on Rush Limbaugh. Creating false distinctions does play into the hands of the Socialist. 
Howard Zinn speaks of property rights, Howard Zinn states the problem in the USA is property rights come before human rights. The two are inseperatable. Howard Zinn expresses much of his Ideology in this speech. Referencing and directing people to read Marx as well as making a statement on our courts and property rights. There are no rights to private property under Marxism. The right to private property is fundamental to our rights under the Constituition. It is the far left Socialist/Marxist which wishes to seperate property rights from human rights. 

Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist 



> Our problem with justice is not a corrupt judge or bribed jury but the ordinary day-to-day functioning of the police, the law, the courts, where property rights come before human rights


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Before we go forward, mdn2000 must stop acting like Zinn or Alisky or Limbaugh.  He makes charges, spreads untruth, and then moves on to something else.  So we can ignore everything he is posting until we settle this.*



> Nice Jake, before I state a thing about the ariticle or Zinn's speech, Jake states I do not understand it


 mdn2000 does not understand Zinn, that is correct.  *mdn2000, you clearly state that property and human rights are interlinked but seem to infer, in fact, that property rights are superior to human rights.*



> Jake, I understand there are Liberals, there are Marxist, I also understand that people can pretend to be a Liberal while being a Marxist. If you care to make the assertion a Liberal is never a Marxist nor vice versa make your arguement, simply because Jake says it aint so does not make it not so.


  Please point out where I said such a thing.  *mdn2000, please point out where I said that.  We don't go forward until you point it out or admit, if you are not lying, you are mistaken.*




> It's not the Marxist that calls for removing Huck Finn from the Library, if you care to make this assertion go ahead,


  Please point out where I said such a thing.  *mdn2000, please point out where I said that.  We don't go forward until you point it out or admit, if you are not lying, you are mistaken.*




> prove your point. It is possible that a Marxist working as a librarian could "damage" a book they do not like and remove it from the shelf. I think that is what Howard Zinn means when Howard Zinn tells people to be politcally active as they choose how to do their job.


 I suppose a Marxist librarian or a Tea Bag archivist could do such a thing.



> how can you gurantee teachers or professionals within the universities would not be rehired if they secretly were pushing Marxism while they did their job. That is your opinion, nothing more.


 What opinion?  You are confused as usual.  But I agree with you that Marxist or Tea Bag librarians or archivists working secretly their nefarious art to deceive may well escape detection.

*mdn2000, please point out where I said the things of which you accuse me.  I are you a liar.*



> Jake, you do realize that I am not in school to be an Archivist, the person who posted Zinn's speech is in school or was in school to be an Archivist.


  Either you poorly copied and paste or you lied.  The post as you did it clearly reflects that you were studying to be an archivist.  I am glad that you are not studying that art.

I do have a question.  Why do you want to be like Zinn or Alisky or Rush?  You follow all of their procedures.


----------



## mdn2000

mdn2000 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it.  Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost Jake you demonstrate you have no understanding of what I posted, this is not an article, had you followed the link you could of seen it was speech. Jake, I posted only a part of the speech.
> 
> Lets examine how a person who heard the speech reacted, for this speech is posted by a person listening to Howard Zinn, so this is how this person interpetted and reacted to the words and advice of Howard Zinn.
> 
> Howard Zinn was a political activitist.
> 
> Just Seeds: Blog: Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, you do realize that I am not in school to be an Archivist, the person who posted Zinn's speech is in school or was in school to be an Archivist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you poorly copied and paste or you lied.  The post as you did it clearly reflects that you were studying to be an archivist.  I am glad that you are not studying that art.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, there it is, Jake it seems clear to me you have a ready made defense of Howard Zinn that Jake used without knowing what was posted, as if what is posted is irrelevant. Jake before I posted Zinn's speech you stated I was wrong, that I could not support what I asserted, I asserted that Zinn's teaching material is not suitable to be used to teach history. Jake you have shown your simply stomping and stammering, this was Jakes defense without knowing or reading Zinn's own words. One thing I notice Jake is that Jake cuts off everything another person posts after which Jake replies to something never said or posted.
> 
> Even here Jake when I point out you made a gross error you deny you made a mistake or that you have no idea what Zinn stated. It is clear Jake, what I posted came from the article, it has the link right above the quote, nothing is as clear as that. Jake if you cannot remember that or understand that, does Jake think Jake has demonstrated that Jake read and understood Howard Zinn's speech.
> 
> Jake you demonstrated Jake does not understand what Howard Zinn stated to the Archivist. Jake, Howard Zinn is an extreme, far, left, liberal, political activist who instructed professionals (artist as Jake calls the government worker in the university library) to advance Liberalism as well as read Marx, read Marx to put their job and role as a professional in perspective.
> 
> Jake, its nice to see that in your last post, you have no "debate" to support your assertions and misperceptions. If you were on the college debate team Jake, you would be third string. Jake if you were in the military you would always be a non-rate. Jake, in business you would be thanked for the coffee and donuts.
> 
> Jake, that was an example of how Jake could of been a bit more creative, hope Jake does not mind I stole from Jake's idea and made it better.
Click to expand...


Jake, get over yourself, I am not going to argue with you about what you said or did not say when your not quoting my posts at the same time your making things up, get a clue, I presented Howard Zinn, now Jake is stomping and stammering playing the victim. Jake if you did not mean the things you said, go back and correct them, thats all. 

What about this post, how did you get this wrong, you care to answer this question maybe I will address one of your rants. Jake you should quit whining, it looks bad on you.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? so then teachers should push their ideological views on the kids?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teachers are taught to push their ideological agenda by Liberals and Marxist. Not only teachers but workers inside the government, simple jobs you would not even consider like a Librarian are told to advance the ideology at work, by the selection of books for instance, by choosing which books to be taken off the shelf.
> 
> Marxist and Liberals actively instruct other Marxist and Liberals within government to use their position to advance the ideology of Marxism or Liberalism.
> 
> Fantastic, huh. To tell you the truth, this morning I had never thought of this but this afternoon its clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sides do it, mdn2000, and indoctrination is wrong.  It's not the marxists (by the way, you know, don't you, that libs are not marxies any more than cons are not nazis?) who call for 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Huck Finn' to be removed from libraries.
> 
> If we had teachers at the schools here who were indoctrinating libertarian, or Republican, or Democratic, or communist, or whatever, I guarantee you they would not be rehired for the following year.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Then go to college, learn the discipline of history and of pedagogy, and if you still don't like Zinn, don't use him.  I gave a call to a friend over at the U, and he says no one he knows there uses Zinn or Chomsky as models for teaching, but if they did, who could possibly care?



Jake, did you actually call a freind so that you could assert Howard Zinn's material is not being used in schools? It seems you are kind of ignorant of who Howard Zinn is and just how active politically Howard Zinn was.

Howard Zinn's book on history is used as well as his ideas. Pretty terrible, finally we have it official, we are indoctrinating children with the specific hard left ideology of Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn even infects Math with his Marxist inpired politcal philosophy. Socialism is to be taught in Math, its not that Johnny has ten apples, its that Johnny has ten apples to re-distribute. 

This is just the tip of the iceburg. The reason we must have a debate on who is good for African Americans is because of the extreme far left activist such as Howard Zinn.

Zinn Education Project &#8211; About



> The Zinn Education Project promotes and supports the use of Howard Zinns  best-selling book A Peoples History of the United States and other materials for teaching a peoples history in middle and high school classrooms across the country. The Zinn Education Project is coordinated by two non-profit organizations, Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are flustered, aren't you, mdn2000?   You said I supported Zinn, and when challenged, you shifted your argument.  You did this several items, and lied on three others.  You are a walking Alinskie/Limbaugh/Zinn, mdn2000, with minor players throw in.  You are fun to watch play the fool.

Mdn2000 strategies

1. scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (_a la _Alinski)
2. no attempt to offer reliable sources
3. ignore being called out on your lies  (_a la _Limbaugh)
4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (_a la _Olbermann)
5. When caught on, start posting over and over again stuff that means nothing

You are Board schizophrenic.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> You are flustered, aren't you, mdn2000?   You said I supported Zinn, and when challenged, you shifted your argument.  You did this several items, and lied on three others.  You are a walking Alinskie/Limbaugh/Zinn, mdn2000, with minor players throw in.  You are fun to watch play the fool.
> 
> Mdn2000 strategies
> 
> 1. scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (_a la _Alinski)
> 2. no attempt to offer reliable sources
> 3. ignore being called out on your lies  (_a la _Limbaugh)
> 4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (_a la _Olbermann)
> 5. When caught on, start posting over and over again stuff that means nothing
> You are Board schizophrenic.



1.  scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (_a la _Alinski)



> Life is a market place of ideas in competition, yet you wish to act like a follower of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Pinochet, Diaz.





> Only you are equating Zinn and Chomsky with Hitler, which is an incredible stretch of the imagination.



2. no attempt to offer reliable sources



> Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist



3. ignore being called out on your lies  (_a la _Limbaugh)
    You made an assertion without proof, if you care to quote entire posts, in context I will reply. 

4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (_a la _Olbermann)



> I hope you understand now what I wrote earlier and try to misinterpret, deliberately or not, what I am saying..





> mdn2000 made a response. I answered clearly and succinctly. He then tried to dodge and then said we were messing up Jroc's thread. Whatever. mdn2000 does not like answering questions, but that is how discussions are developed





> mdn2000, as usual, makes wide, sweeping accusations that he can't support





> why to apologize mdn2000 when he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to Zinn.





> You have made the assertion that Zinn's work is bad for teaching history





> mdn2000, you have offered a mere assertion. That means nothing unless you give evidence for it, before you can ask others to refute it. Don't you understand this. You have lost the discussion if you don't do this.





> mdn2000 really wants me to rebut an assertion with evidence although he refuses to support his assertion. He clearly can't defend it.



Number 5. Thanks for telling us how Jake operates.

Jake I repeatedly asked if you wanted Zinn's material taught in school, you stated that you called your freind and he saw no problem, you then looked at Zinn's speech and could not even comprehend it was a speech from Zinn, when the title and the person who used the speech in an Article was clear. On reading the Speech you stated the person was merely telling people to be neutral, you further stated that if anyone tried to teach Communsit ideology they would never be rehired. 

I posted Howard Zinn's own words.



> 2. no attempt to offer reliable sources



I posted Howard Zinn's own words. That is not reliable. Jake its almost as if you smoke a lot of Dope and cannot remember or comprehend what you read.

You even replied to the author of the article as if that was me. 

Where you colors well Jake, you are nothing more than a troll who supports the Far Left Liberal Marxist Howard Zinn. 

Jake, you jumped through hoops to state this;



> Thank you for finally posting an argument about Zinn, even if you don't understand it. Now you could have boiled it down and tell us what the article is saying, but I will do it for you.
> 
> the American teacher must be on guard against the lies of the far left and the far right.



Howard Zinn's speech on the necessary rebellion of the archivist

Thiat is the title of the article. Jake if you had any idea of what you speak, or if you are who you say you are, you would of kept your fly-trap shut.


----------



## mdn2000

Jake, you have proved yourself a troll, a fool, and not a Republican, I am done addressing your tired whining, crying, and ranting.

I will give you the last word Jake, lets see if you choose to support Howard Zinn, attack the messenger, or play the victim.

Just close as in a closing arguement, I say that because like I said, I will not be involved in your little circle jerk, it was fun exposing Jake for who Jake is but I must go on, if you care to support your position as to how or why Howard Zinn is good material for a high school student I will gladly debate you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

mdn2000 said:


> <snip>



You are flustered, aren't you, mdn2000? You said I supported Zinn, and when challenged, you shifted your argument. You did this several items, and lied on three others. You are a walking Alinskie/Limbaugh/Zinn, mdn2000, with minor players throw in. You are fun to watch play the fool.

Mdn2000 strategies

1. scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (a la Alinski)
2. no attempt to offer reliable sources
3. ignore being called out on your lies (a la Limbaugh)
4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (a la Olbermann)
5. When caught on, start posting over and over again stuff that means nothing
You are Board schizophrenic. 

mdn2000 has "proved yourself a troll, a fool, and not a Republican".


----------



## bodecea

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



And then they sold them out in the 1976 presidential election.


----------



## Lisa4Catholics

http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction#p/a/u/0/xryXpK042pQ
Here is a good explanation.


----------



## mdn2000

JakeStarkey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are flustered, aren't you, mdn2000? You said I supported Zinn, and when challenged, you shifted your argument. You did this several items, and lied on three others. You are a walking Alinskie/Limbaugh/Zinn, mdn2000, with minor players throw in. You are fun to watch play the fool.
> 
> Mdn2000 strategies
> 
> 1. scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (a la Alinski)
> 2. no attempt to offer reliable sources
> 3. ignore being called out on your lies (a la Limbaugh)
> 4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (a la Olbermann)
> 5. When caught on, start posting over and over again stuff that means nothing
> You are Board schizophrenic.
> 
> mdn2000 has "proved yourself a troll, a fool, and not a Republican".
Click to expand...


Ha, ha, Jake, your last word is your first word, Jake, you screamed out charges before I said a thing, no attempt at a reliable source, sorry, I posted Howard Zinn's words. Name a better source when discussing Zinn, than Zinn. 

Ignore, I addressed each point you made, as clearly seen.

Make the same statement over and over, as you are doing, as you have done.

Jake, you support Howard Zinn, attack Rush Limbaugh, and I constantly mistake Jake as being a Marxist. How is that Jake, your a Republican yet I can honestly state that is bullshit. 

I gave you the last word, I thought you would show that you would close as a professional, did you not post a link on how to debate, I guess you did not read it, of course, that is not the case, you are nothing more than a hack, how about another private message where you can tell me the rules according to Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your immediate post above underlines what I posted before.  "*You are flustered, aren't you, mdn2000*? You said I supported Zinn, and when challenged, you shifted your argument. You did this several items, and lied on three others. You are a walking Alinskie/Limbaugh/Zinn, mdn2000, with minor players throw in. You are fun to watch play the fool.

Mdn2000 strategies

1. scream any charges that have no basis in fact - the more outrageous the better (a la Alinski)
2. no attempt to offer reliable sources
3. ignore being called out on your lies (a la Limbaugh)
4. make the same statements over and over and over the same argument over and over again (a la Olbermann)
5. When caught on, start posting over and over again stuff that means nothing
You are Board schizophrenic.

mdn2000 has "proved yourself a troll, a fool, and not a Republican"."


----------



## Jroc

> Now just pause for a moment. Can you imagine for a second if it was 2003 and George Bush was president.  Imagine the New York Times reporting &#8220;Black Unemployment Up 25.2% Since Bush Became President.&#8221;
> 
> The NAACP, Annenberg Foundation, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, ADL, Jessie Jackson, and the rest of the race hustlers and parasite organizations would be howling to the high heavens &#8220;Bush is a racist&#8221; and &#8220;Bush hates black people.&#8221;  Every paper in the country would run a version of the above headline.
> 
> Today when blacks are devastated by Obamanomics there is not a peep out of the nation&#8217;s news outlets.  As long as the news media agrees with the politics of the president devastating unemployment is fine with them.  It&#8217;s not the news media jobs that are being lost.
> 
> And where are the black leaders screaming about how the black man is bearing the brunt of Obamanomics?  All we get is Maxine Waters telling Obama to make more stops in black communities on his next bus tour and then reverting back to calling white people racist.  It all comas back to white people being racist to black leaders.  Like a lab experiment where the subjects have access to a button that injects them with cocaine, they keep pushing and pushing that race button.  They simply do not understand that while they may get a short term high, in the long run that button will kill them.



» Black Unemployment Up 25.2% Since Obama Became President


----------



## daveman

Jroc said:


> Now just pause for a moment. Can you imagine for a second if it was 2003 and George Bush was president.  Imagine the New York Times reporting Black Unemployment Up 25.2% Since Bush Became President.
> 
> The NAACP, Annenberg Foundation, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, ADL, Jessie Jackson, and the rest of the race hustlers and parasite organizations would be howling to the high heavens Bush is a racist and Bush hates black people.  Every paper in the country would run a version of the above headline.
> 
> Today when blacks are devastated by Obamanomics there is not a peep out of the nations news outlets.  As long as the news media agrees with the politics of the president devastating unemployment is fine with them.  Its not the news media jobs that are being lost.
> 
> And where are the black leaders screaming about how the black man is bearing the brunt of Obamanomics?  All we get is Maxine Waters telling Obama to make more stops in black communities on his next bus tour and then reverting back to calling white people racist.  It all comas back to white people being racist to black leaders.  Like a lab experiment where the subjects have access to a button that injects them with cocaine, they keep pushing and pushing that race button.  They simply do not understand that while they may get a short term high, in the long run that button will kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> » Black Unemployment Up 25.2% Since Obama Became President
Click to expand...

Black unemployment during a Republican Administration is evil.  Black unemployment during a Democratic Administration is just collateral damage.


----------



## Sallow

Conservatives hate minorities. Simple.


----------



## Trajan

oh yeah,  we hate them so much we are fighting tooth and nail to get them a better education, because well, we hate them. yup makes sense to me....


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> Conservatives hate minorities. Simple.


Sorry, we're anti-slavery and pro-equality of all men, Sallow. You knew that too, didn't you.


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> Conservatives hate minorities. Simple.



Facts are facts you can demagogues and ignore them if you want but you're the one that's blind boy.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Conservatives hate minorities. Simple.



I suppose regurgitating talking points is easier than thinking for yourself.  Gaea knows most leftists do that.


----------



## Salt Jones

Why don't blacks believe that republicans are their "real allies"?


----------



## Jroc

Salt Jones said:


> Why don't blacks believe that republicans are their "real allies"?



Because they have been brainwashed by their so-called leaders who make a lot of money off the suffering of their own people, it's a business with them. And don't go off the liberal plantation or they'll be an "uncle tom&#8221;


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> Why don't blacks believe that republicans are their "real allies"?


Speaking of regurgitated talking points...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period from 1865 to 1876.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ...ok the history didn't stop at 1865, and I seem to remember you not understanding the 3/5th clause in the Constitution, yet you presume to tell me what I don't know? Please.
Click to expand...


I presume nothing.  You are wrong, period.  You use term "Lynching" incorrectly, you do not understand the 3/5th clause, and I will always properly correct your nonsense.  And daveman's as well.


----------



## rdean

Which is why the treat the nations first black president with so much respect.


----------



## Moonglow

Lincoln was not a republican during his second term, because of the rabid republicans and their extremist attitudes.


----------



## Moonglow

Jroc said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't blacks believe that republicans are their "real allies"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they have been brainwashed by their so-called leaders who make a lot of money off the suffering of their own people, it's a business with them. And don't go off the liberal plantation or they'll be an "uncle tom
Click to expand...


Like the Jews in Israel?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln was always a liberal Whig of his time, believing in the power of the national government to act in the interst of the country.  He would have clearly seen the perfidy of the Democratic and Republican senators and representatives in Congress blocking civil rights in the 1950s and the 1960s as the worst of states' right and local home rule.  He would have applauded the Civil Rights work by Kennedy and Johnson, and the dem leaders in the Senate and the House.


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans believe in tough love for blacks. Removing all social programs, education and jobs programs will make you stronger

Some friend


----------



## JakeStarkey

The GOP clearly abandoned the blacks (once again) after 1980.


----------



## Rocko

BlackAsCoal said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.
> 
> Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.
> 
> Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.
> 
> Try this one on for size ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Congressional  Black Caucus in *1973*
> 
> Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.
> 
> Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.
> 
> That's not a secret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
Click to expand...


Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.

As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.


----------



## rightwinger

Barry44sucks said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.
> 
> As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.
Click to expand...


How white of you


----------



## Rocko

rightwinger said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.
> 
> As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How white of you
Click to expand...


whats that supposed to mean?


----------



## rdean

Barry44sucks said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that mean? can you refute any of my points? are you concerned about the genicide of black babies? what has the democrat party done for black Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.*
> As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.
Click to expand...


cuz dem po blacks don't no what gud fo dem but publicans do.


----------



## Tank

I don't know what liberals are so proud of, have they seen what going on with blacks today?


----------



## rightwinger

What have Republicans ever proposed to help blacks or poor Americans in general?  All they have done is fight for the rights of the wealthy to continue to accumulate wealth off the backs of the working poor

At every opportunity they have fought to reduce child care, education, health and jobs programs that will help Americans who are struggling


----------



## daveman

rdean said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.*
> As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cuz dem po blacks don't no what gud fo dem but publicans do.
Click to expand...

That must explain why I always see white liberals claiming to speak for the black community and defining what's in blacks' best interests.  

Oh, wait...


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> What have Republicans ever proposed to help blacks or poor Americans in general?  All they have done is fight for the rights of the wealthy to continue to accumulate wealth off the backs of the working poor
> 
> At every opportunity they have fought to reduce child care, education, health and jobs programs that will help Americans who are struggling


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the term 'lynching' with the battles and raids by both sides during Reconstruction.  Go study the period from 1865 to 1876.  What you want to call lynchings were not in the traditional sense of the word.  Get a copy of Kevin M. Schultz's Hist Vol II from 1865, and read chapter 16 very carefully, or any other text books of the last twenty years that deals with Reconstruction.  Your video show is not history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ...ok the history didn't stop at 1865, and I seem to remember you not understanding the 3/5th clause in the Constitution, yet you presume to tell me what I don't know? Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presume nothing.  You are wrong, period.  You use term "Lynching" incorrectly, you do not understand the 3/5th clause, and I will always properly correct your nonsense.  And daveman's as well.
Click to expand...


You didn't prove anything in this whole thread Jake I suggest you go back and read through it again then get back to me


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP clearly abandoned the blacks (once again) after 1980.



You're clueless as usual Jake these numbers are from 7 months ago they are worst now as I posted them previously.



> Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.
> 
> And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million



Which president was a better friend to African Americans: Obama or Ronald Reagan? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## Jroc

If you are from the Detroit Area you'll remember this, this is what Democrats think of Black people in the inner city. While Kwame was stealing from mostly black people, his mother gets up there and spouts this pathetic crap. So what does she really think about these people?...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFunr5TAlMA]Kwame Kilpatrick's Mom Talkin About "Yall'z Boy" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Maple

Truthmatters said:


> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important



I don't believe I have ever seen anyone who is as blind as you are to the facts, when the facts are in your face. And they are here. You and your fellow liberal democrats deny history and the facts to the point of total and complete idiosy. You are truly nut jobs.


----------



## Maple

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



Finally a good and true picture of history and the facts that surround it, I just don't think it is enough to get the black population off of the democrat plantation.


----------



## Jroc

Maple said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a good and true picture of history and the facts that surround it, I just don't think it is enough to get the black population off of the democrat plantation.
Click to expand...



 Well.. It doesn't hurt to get this info out there. I spent a lot of time on this thread. At first not too many would respond.  I'll keep adding to it periodically.


----------



## rightwinger

Maple said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a good and true picture of history and the facts that surround it, I just don't think it is enough to get the black population off of the democrat plantation.
Click to expand...


It all comes down to what have you done for me lately?  Republicans of today bear little resemblance to republicans of the 50s and 60s. There are no Rockefeller Republicans. Starting with Reagan, they have all been driven from the party

The revisionist history that it was republicans alone who brought the civil rights period is a fallacy. Civil Rights was a North/South issue. Both Republicans and Democrats from the North supported it and Republicans and Democrats from the South opposed it

Can you name a single Republican from the South who supported integration and civil rights?

When Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox blocked access to blacks in those doorways, can you show me any republicans from their states who said this was wrong?


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a good and true picture of history and the facts that surround it, I just don't think it is enough to get the black population off of the democrat plantation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all comes down to what have you done for me lately?  Republicans of today bear little resemblance to republicans of the 50s and 60s. There are no Rockefeller Republicans. Starting with Reagan, they have all been driven from the party
> 
> The revisionist history that it was republicans alone who brought the civil rights period is a fallacy. Civil Rights was a North/South issue. Both Republicans and Democrats from the North supported it and Republicans and Democrats from the South opposed it
> 
> Can you name a single Republican from the South who supported integration and civil rights?
> 
> When Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox blocked access to blacks in those doorways, can you show me any republicans from their states who said this was wrong?
Click to expand...



The democrats ran everything in the south, White Republicans were lynched along with blacks. Rockefeller? Please... those country club Republicans are as bad as the libs.  Liberty, Self-determination is all the people need to succeed. Real conservative Republicans have fought for those things since Lincoln. That&#8217;s what conservatives stand for and that is what Lincoln stood for. Read through the entire thread and you might learn something


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc and Maple simply cannot provide a feasible argument that the GOP has been a friend to the African American population since late in the 1970s.  If the GOP had done so, then the numbers would not be skewed.  I sent their arguments over to the government profs at the U for a big laugh.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a good and true picture of history and the facts that surround it, I just don't think it is enough to get the black population off of the democrat plantation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to what have you done for me lately?  Republicans of today bear little resemblance to republicans of the 50s and 60s. There are no Rockefeller Republicans. Starting with Reagan, they have all been driven from the party
> 
> The revisionist history that it was republicans alone who brought the civil rights period is a fallacy. Civil Rights was a North/South issue. Both Republicans and Democrats from the North supported it and Republicans and Democrats from the South opposed it
> 
> Can you name a single Republican from the South who supported integration and civil rights?
> 
> When Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox blocked access to blacks in those doorways, can you show me any republicans from their states who said this was wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats ran everything in the south, White Republicans were lynched along with blacks. Rockefeller? Please... those country club Republicans are as bad as the libs.  Liberty, Self-determination is all the people need to succeed. Real conservative Republicans have fought for those things since Lincoln. Thats what conservatives stand for and that is what Lincoln stood for. Read through the entire thread and you might learn something
Click to expand...


I read the entire list and it is obvious republican propaganda right down to the abortion is black genocide closing


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc and Maple simply cannot provide a feasible argument that the GOP has been a friend to the African American population since late in the 1970s.  If the GOP had done so, then the numbers would not be skewed.  I sent their arguments over to the government profs at the U for a big laugh.



Jake your a joke, YOU have provided nothing to refute anything since i started this thread  "government profs at the U" Yeah your liberal professers get um posting here. Your a brain washed stoodge like rest you are no conservative, you are a fraud Jake.

Was the Constitution pro-slavery? The changing view of Frederick Douglass | Social Education | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to what have you done for me lately?  Republicans of today bear little resemblance to republicans of the 50s and 60s. There are no Rockefeller Republicans. Starting with Reagan, they have all been driven from the party
> 
> The revisionist history that it was republicans alone who brought the civil rights period is a fallacy. Civil Rights was a North/South issue. Both Republicans and Democrats from the North supported it and Republicans and Democrats from the South opposed it
> 
> Can you name a single Republican from the South who supported integration and civil rights?
> 
> When Democrats George Wallace and Lester Maddox blocked access to blacks in those doorways, can you show me any republicans from their states who said this was wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats ran everything in the south, White Republicans were lynched along with blacks. Rockefeller? Please... those country club Republicans are as bad as the libs.  Liberty, Self-determination is all the people need to succeed. Real conservative Republicans have fought for those things since Lincoln. Thats what conservatives stand for and that is what Lincoln stood for. Read through the entire thread and you might learn something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the *entire list *and it is obvious republican propaganda right down to the abortion is black genocide closing
Click to expand...


 I said the *entire thread* thats if you little pea brain can comprehend it. That list was out together by a Black conservative Church here in the Detroit Area


----------



## Truthmatters

why is it blacks dont believe you little line of bullshit?


----------



## Jroc

Truthmatters said:


> why is it blacks dont believe you little line of bullshit?



Why is it that you can't do anything but make stupid comments? Present an argument or don't bother me. This thread is for thinking people.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats ran everything in the south, White Republicans were lynched along with blacks. Rockefeller? Please... those country club Republicans are as bad as the libs.  Liberty, Self-determination is all the people need to succeed. Real conservative Republicans have fought for those things since Lincoln. Thats what conservatives stand for and that is what Lincoln stood for. Read through the entire thread and you might learn something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the *entire list *and it is obvious republican propaganda right down to the abortion is black genocide closing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said the *entire thread* thats if you little pea brain can comprehend it. That list was out together by a Black conservative Church here in the Detroit Area
Click to expand...


Whoop de fucking do....

Still blatant propaganda distributed by rightwing nuts


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc has trouble accepting that the %s of blacks accepting GOP nonsense about being loved by the party is reflected in overwhelming black support for the Dems.

End of story.  Massive fail for Jroc.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc has trouble accepting that the %s of blacks accepting GOP nonsense about being loved by the party is reflected in overwhelming black support for the Dems.
> 
> End of story.  Massive fail for Jroc.



Wrong...  Facts are Facts you've done nothing to counter any facts I've put forth. African Americans vote Dem at their own expense and it is pathetic the way they blindly to so given the results.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fact . . . your interp of the facts have been countered every step of the way.  The %s of blacks who will not accept the GOP proves either your interp (1) is wrong or (2) your persuasiveness if flatly flawed.  If you accept the latter, better ask yourself why.

End of your story.  Massive fail of the OP.


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you didn't notice, I've already addressed long past history and clearly demonstrated that republicans have no interest in African-Americans.
> 
> Address that there were more democratic African-Americans in Congress in 1973 than republicans have ever had since Reconstruction.
> 
> How many do you have in congress now? Two .. hadn't had ONE since 2003 when JC Watts walked out the door.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this argument is quite over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because black politicans and black voters pledge their allegiance to the democrats doesn't mean democrats are good for blacks.
> 
> As far as i'm concerned democrats are they enemy to not just blacks, but all groups, even if the groups or democrats themselves don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How white of you
Click to expand...


How racist of you


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Fact . . . your interp of the facts have been countered every step of the way.  The %s of blacks who will not accept the GOP proves either your interp (1) is wrong or (2) your persuasiveness if flatly flawed.  If you accept the latter, better ask yourself why.
> 
> *End of your story.*  Massive fail of the OP.



In your own mind.. The facts speak for themselves, I don't have to ask myself why. The Black family has been broken down by their dependency on big government liberalism 70% of Black babies are born out of wedlock the highest % of abortion is in the black community, Blacks are not even the largest minority anymore in their own country, so what have the dems done for African Americans exactly? Why don't you lay it out for me genius.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMOFsSNS8s]Dr. Walter Williams: Welfare Broken Up Black Family - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7JYLb0XPA8&feature=related]"Playing the Race Card at Every Turn" - YouTube[/ame]




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming % of blacks do not associate with the GOP.  Why?  Because they know it is their enemy generally.  So the OP is a fail.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming % of blacks do not associate with the GOP.  Why?  *Because they know it is their enemy *generally.  So the OP is a fail.



Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was


----------



## Maple

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact . . . your interp of the facts have been countered every step of the way.  The %s of blacks who will not accept the GOP proves either your interp (1) is wrong or (2) your persuasiveness if flatly flawed.  If you accept the latter, better ask yourself why.
> 
> *End of your story.*  Massive fail of the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your own mind.. The facts speak for themselves, I don't have to ask myself why. The Black family has been broken down by their dependency on big government liberalism 70% of Black babies are born out of wedlock the highest % of abortion is in the black community, Blacks are not even the largest minority anymore in their own country, so what have the dems done for African Americans exactly? Why don't you lay it out for me genius.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMOFsSNS8s]Dr. Walter Williams: Welfare Broken Up Black Family - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Facts are facts and the liberals won't ever accept facts or even history, everything they think is based on emotion, no reality, it's all about how they feel. You have a nice and very factual thread and I totally agree with your assessment, but I am a conservative and facts do work with me.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming % of blacks do not associate with the GOP.  Why?  *Because they know it is their enemy *generally.  So the OP is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was
Click to expand...


Other than cut programs that help the poor get training, childcare and entry level jobs...what have Republicans done to help blacks?

Oh yea......I forgot....Abe Lincoln


----------



## Maple

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming % of blacks do not associate with the GOP.  Why?  *Because they know it is their enemy *generally.  So the OP is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than cut programs that help the poor get training, childcare and entry level jobs...what have Republicans done to help blacks?
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot....Abe Lincoln
Click to expand...


We freed them from slavery and were the ones who put Civil rights into law, the dems opposed it.


----------



## rightwinger

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than cut programs that help the poor get training, childcare and entry level jobs...what have Republicans done to help blacks?
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot....Abe Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We freed them from slavery and were the ones who put Civil rights into law, the dems opposed it.
Click to expand...


50 years...seems like yesterday

Don't it?


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming % of blacks do not associate with the GOP.  Why?  *Because they know it is their enemy *generally.  So the OP is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than cut programs that help the poor get training, childcare and entry level jobs...what have Republicans done to help blacks?
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot....Abe Lincoln
Click to expand...


This is what you come up with? All the info in this thread and this is all you got? So while the liberal Great Society has done nothing but create a whole class of people dependent on the government, help to destroy the black family, and leave their children stuck in failing public schools, all the while wasting trillions of dollars and, this is all you got? "Child care? Give it another shot talking points boy


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for for your brillance Jake What a wasted post that was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than cut programs that help the poor get training, childcare and entry level jobs...what have Republicans done to help blacks?
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot....Abe Lincoln
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you come up with? All the info in this thread and this is all you got? So while the liberal Great Society has done nothing but create a whole class of people dependent on the government, help to destroy the black family, and leave their children stuck in failing public schools, all the while wasting trillions of dollars and, this is all you got? "Child care? Give it another shot talking points boy
Click to expand...


Well.....what you got to offer?

What is the GOP magic pill?   Let's end all these programs that help poor people and will they magically become rich people?  Will all their troubles go away when you cast them out in the street?

You want poor people to work for $7 an hour?  First thing you better look at is low cost child care


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact remains is that Jroc has nothing but his opinion, no evidence to support other than a tortorous rendering of historical fact that really undermines his point.

Blacks know the GOP as it is constituted right now is their enemy.  End of story.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact remains is that Jroc has nothing but his opinion, no evidence to support other than a tortorous rendering of historical fact that really undermines his point.
> 
> Blacks know the GOP as it is constituted right *now is their enemy.*  End of story.





It has been decreed by "Jake the great" I have a whole thread of evidence you? Not so much. When you've got friends like the liberals you don't need enemies..


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ2YgcdbP2s]School Vouchers Killed by Democrat Congress - All poor children to be left behind now - Glenn Beck - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXFVeATlCDo&feature=related]John Stossel - Government Schools - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you are using Glenn Beck?  Really??  Stossel is a hack but not crazy.

I am glad you are posting a one-sided tortorous rendering of an important issue.  When you post the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.

But when you cheat like this, all I have to do is point it out.  Done.

And since you believe that the feds hurt public education, why are you not cheering the Dems on.  See how this works?  Done.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc, you are using Glenn Beck?  Really??  Stossel is a hack but not crazy.
> 
> I am glad you are posting a one-sided tortorous rendering of an important issue.  When you post the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.
> 
> But when you cheat like this, all I have to do is point it out.  Done.
> 
> And since you believe that the feds hurt public education, why are you not cheering the Dems on.  See how this works?  Done.



Jake your posts are really becoming quite pathetic. I do work for lower income people, I'm from the inner city and those are the people I prefer do work for. the other day I was working for a older black couple the women was on the phone arguing with the utility Co. because her bill kept rising. I'm sure you remember this right?..


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU]Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade - YouTube[/ame]    


I don't know what world you live in, but you have no clue, just like most of the liberals


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating with selective out-of-context material.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.


----------



## rightwinger

Can someone explain to me what Republicans are doing today that makes them allies of African Americans?


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating with selective out-of-context material.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Can someone explain to me what Republicans are doing today that makes them allies of African Americans?


After you tell us what the Democrats are doing today to make them allies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating with selective out-of-context material.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.
Click to expand...


I agree, daveman, that is an excellent picture of Jroc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman, you have to support the OP, which you and all the other Hard Right wacks have failed to do.  If the GOP was the friend of blacks, then they would overwhelmingly support it.

So, yet once again, you can't counter your assertion with "OK, prove me wrong with evidence."  That is not how adults act in discussion.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me what Republicans are doing today that makes them allies of African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> After you tell us what the Democrats are doing today to make them allies.
Click to expand...


Sure.....Democrats support jobs training, education initiatives, planned parenthood, low cost childcare, pre-k education, aid to families with dependent children...

Republicans want to scale down or kill all those programs

Now, your turn

What have Republicans done To make them the real allies of African Americans?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me what Republicans are doing today that makes them allies of African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> After you tell us what the Democrats are doing today to make them allies.
Click to expand...


Sure.....Democrats support jobs training, education initiatives, planned parenthood, low cost childcare, pre-k education, aid to families with dependent children...

Republicans want to scale down or kill all those programs

Now, your turn

What areRepublicans doing To make them the real allies of African Americans?


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating with selective out-of-context material.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, daveman, that is an excellent picture of Jroc.
Click to expand...

He doesn't cry when someone criticizes Obama.

You do.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman, you have to support the OP, which you and all the other Hard Right wacks have failed to do.  If the GOP was the friend of blacks, then they would overwhelmingly support it.
> 
> So, yet once again, you can't counter your assertion with "OK, prove me wrong with evidence."  That is not how adults act in discussion.


What would you know about being an adult, kid?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me what Republicans are doing today that makes them allies of African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> After you tell us what the Democrats are doing today to make them allies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.....Democrats support jobs training, education initiatives, planned parenthood, low cost childcare, pre-k education, aid to families with dependent children...
> 
> Republicans want to scale down or kill all those programs
> 
> Now, your turn
> 
> What have Republicans done To make them the real allies of African Americans?
Click to expand...

Let's examine what you claim Democrats have done.

Democrats support keeping blacks dependent on government.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at your average inner city.  

You talk a good game, but that's about it.  

The GOP supports equal opportunity for everyone.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you tell us what the Democrats are doing today to make them allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....Democrats support jobs training, education initiatives, planned parenthood, low cost childcare, pre-k education, aid to families with dependent children...
> 
> Republicans want to scale down or kill all those programs
> 
> Now, your turn
> 
> What have Republicans done To make them the real allies of African Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's examine what you claim Democrats have done.
> 
> Democrats support keeping blacks dependent on government.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at your average inner city.
> 
> You talk a good game, but that's about it.
> 
> The GOP supports equal opportunity for everyone.
Click to expand...


Just as I expected from you Dave....you got nothing


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....Democrats support jobs training, education initiatives, planned parenthood, low cost childcare, pre-k education, aid to families with dependent children...
> 
> Republicans want to scale down or kill all those programs
> 
> Now, your turn
> 
> What have Republicans done To make them the real allies of African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine what you claim Democrats have done.
> 
> Democrats support keeping blacks dependent on government.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at your average inner city.
> 
> You talk a good game, but that's about it.
> 
> The GOP supports equal opportunity for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I expected from you Dave....you got nothing
Click to expand...


Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.

Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?

II know why -- I just want to hear your version.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's examine what you claim Democrats have done.
> 
> Democrats support keeping blacks dependent on government.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at your average inner city.
> 
> You talk a good game, but that's about it.
> 
> The GOP supports equal opportunity for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I expected from you Dave....you got nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.
> 
> Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?
> 
> II know why -- I just want to hear your version.
Click to expand...


Let's look at the premise of this thread daveman

The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working

When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"

What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?

What equal opportunity are you offering?


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating *with selective out-of-context material*.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.



Counter it.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I expected from you Dave....you got nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.
> 
> Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?
> 
> II know why -- I just want to hear your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Let's look at the premise of this thread *daveman
> 
> The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working
> 
> When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"
> 
> What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?
> 
> What equal opportunity are you offering?
Click to expand...


 Umm.. The premise of this thread is Republicans have done more to liberate and help blacks in this country then any Democrat propaganda machine can counter. Also the fact is that they should be looking at both parties for what they are, and have done and not simply listen to the bull the liberal Democrat race hustlers spew


----------



## IndependntLogic

This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well.


----------



## Jroc

IndependntLogic said:


> This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, *once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well*.





Really? prove it


----------



## IndependntLogic

Jroc said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, *once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? prove it
Click to expand...


Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I expected from you Dave....you got nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.
> 
> Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?
> 
> II know why -- I just want to hear your version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at the premise of this thread daveman
> 
> The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working
> 
> When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"
> 
> What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?
> 
> What equal opportunity are you offering?
Click to expand...

The insistence that blacks are capable of succeeding on their own without the help of white people.  

Democrats don't believe that.  They believe blacks are incapable of succeeding without the help of white liberals.

The soft bigotry of low expectations.


----------



## daveman

IndependntLogic said:


> This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well.



In your head, perhaps, but not out here in the real world.


----------



## daveman

IndependntLogic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, *once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.
Click to expand...

Telling someone else to prove your point for you is a massive fail.


----------



## Jroc

IndependntLogic said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is accurate. Until blacks made strides toward actual equality in business, housing etc... about 40 years ago, the GOP was their best friend. Of course, *once they started getting executive jobs, moving into white enighborhoods etc... the GOP becamse their political enemy but oh well*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.
Click to expand...


Affirmative action *overall* has not helped, "urban housing" come to Detroit and you'll see the "Urban housing"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtXLzhbTz5E]Thomas Sowell: Before and After Affirmative Action - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

Jroc said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Affirmative action *overall* has not helped, "urban housing" come to Detroit and you'll see the "Urban housing"
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtXLzhbTz5E]Thomas Sowell: Before and After Affirmative Action - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

But they meant well, and felt good about themselves.

And of course, that's all that really matters.


----------



## IndependntLogic

daveman said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling someone else to prove your point for you is a massive fail.
Click to expand...


Oooh. I'm so distraught. I haven't done the research because it's beyond you guys to figure out whether the GOP has voted against things such as Affirmative Action, Equal pay etc...

BTW, I'm not saying that all those things are good or that I agree with them. Here, let me make this easier to figure out since you seem to be having a problem with this. Let's use simple evidence. People vote for who they think represents their interest best.

Now let me see. Hmmm. Which party has _owned_ the minority vote since the 70's? Yeah. That would be hard to figure out.


----------



## daveman

IndependntLogic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be happy to. Google the votes on Affirmative Action, Urban Housing, equal pay,  etc... and see which party voted overwhelmingly against.
> 
> 
> 
> Telling someone else to prove your point for you is a massive fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh. I'm so distraught. I haven't done the research because it's beyond you guys to figure out whether the GOP has voted against things such as Affirmative Action, Equal pay etc...
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying that all those things are good or that I agree with them. Here, let me make this easier to figure out since you seem to be having a problem with this. Let's use simple evidence. People vote for who they think represents their interest best.
> 
> Now let me see. Hmmm. Which party has _owned_ the minority vote since the 70's? Yeah. That would be hard to figure out.
Click to expand...

So, you fail -- and it's someone else's fault.

Yep, you're a leftist.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.
> 
> Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?
> 
> II know why -- I just want to hear your version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's look at the premise of this thread *daveman
> 
> The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working
> 
> When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"
> 
> What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?
> 
> What equal opportunity are you offering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm.. The premise of this thread is Republicans have done more to liberate and help blacks in this country then any Democrat propaganda machine can counter. Also the fact is that they should be looking at both parties for what they are, and have done and not simply listen to the bull the liberal Democrat race hustlers spew
Click to expand...


Ok then.....

Can you identify what Republicans have done to make things better for black people?  Once they abolish all those nasty liberal programs to help blacks, what are they going to replace them with?

Why should blacks consider republicans to be their allies?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction:  I got nothing that you'll accept.
> 
> Why do you want to keep black people dependent on the government?
> 
> II know why -- I just want to hear your version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the premise of this thread daveman
> 
> The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working
> 
> When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"
> 
> What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?
> 
> What equal opportunity are you offering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The insistence that blacks are capable of succeeding on their own without the help of white people.
> 
> Democrats don't believe that.  They believe blacks are incapable of succeeding without the help of white liberals.
> 
> The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Click to expand...


Just what I thought....

Republicans intend to remove all programs that help not just blacks but all poor people and say....."you are on your own......lift yourself up from poverty"

Find your own damn money to go to school, you get sick....that's your problem, can't afford rent or food to eat?.....suck it up

That is what passes for being an Allie to republicans


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the premise of this thread daveman
> 
> The claim is that african americans should flock to the Republican because you claim Democratic initiatives are not working
> 
> When I asked what Republicans have to offer, the best you could come up with was "Equal opportunity"
> 
> What equal opportunity is being offered by Republicans?  The right to pay your own way to college without assistance?  The right to try to get a low paying job and pay a babysitter $5 an hour?  The equal opportunity to buy groceries and pay rents while you only make $7 an hour?
> 
> What equal opportunity are you offering?
> 
> 
> 
> The insistence that blacks are capable of succeeding on their own without the help of white people.
> 
> Democrats don't believe that.  They believe blacks are incapable of succeeding without the help of white liberals.
> 
> The soft bigotry of low expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just what I thought....
> 
> Republicans intend to remove all programs that help not just blacks but all poor people and say....."you are on your own......lift yourself up from poverty"
> 
> Find your own damn money to go to school, you get sick....that's your problem, can't afford rent or food to eat?.....suck it up
> 
> That is what passes for being an Allie to republicans
Click to expand...

So you think it's better to pat them on the head and treat them like children.  

Basically, you're saying Democrats buy the black vote with government goodies.

On that, we agree.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The insistence that blacks are capable of succeeding on their own without the help of white people.
> 
> Democrats don't believe that.  They believe blacks are incapable of succeeding without the help of white liberals.
> 
> The soft bigotry of low expectations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just what I thought....
> 
> Republicans intend to remove all programs that help not just blacks but all poor people and say....."you are on your own......lift yourself up from poverty"
> 
> Find your own damn money to go to school, you get sick....that's your problem, can't afford rent or food to eat?.....suck it up
> 
> That is what passes for being an Allie to republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think it's better to pat them on the head and treat them like children.
> 
> Basically, you're saying Democrats buy the black vote with government goodies.
> 
> On that, we agree.
Click to expand...


Not at all Dave...I am proposing that you help people who need help

Your basic premise that not a single social program ever helped a single black person is a blatant lie. 

Your premise that because some poor people become dependent on the government that all poor people depend on government is also a lie

The truth is that millions of Americans both black and white have used these programs to lift themselves out of poverty.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just what I thought....
> 
> Republicans intend to remove all programs that help not just blacks but all poor people and say....."you are on your own......lift yourself up from poverty"
> 
> Find your own damn money to go to school, you get sick....that's your problem, can't afford rent or food to eat?.....suck it up
> 
> That is what passes for being an Allie to republicans
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's better to pat them on the head and treat them like children.
> 
> Basically, you're saying Democrats buy the black vote with government goodies.
> 
> On that, we agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all Dave...I am proposing that you help people who need help
> 
> Your basic premise that not a single social program ever helped a single black person is a blatant lie.
> 
> Your premise that because some poor people become dependent on the government that all poor people depend on government is also a lie
> 
> The truth is that millions of Americans both black and white have used these programs to lift themselves out of poverty.
Click to expand...

You're saying I've said things I have not, in fact, said.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's better to pat them on the head and treat them like children.
> 
> Basically, you're saying Democrats buy the black vote with government goodies.
> 
> On that, we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all Dave...I am proposing that you help people who need help
> 
> Your basic premise that not a single social program ever helped a single black person is a blatant lie.
> 
> Your premise that because some poor people become dependent on the government that all poor people depend on government is also a lie
> 
> The truth is that millions of Americans both black and white have used these programs to lift themselves out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying I've said things I have not, in fact, said.
Click to expand...


Well then....maybe you can enlighten us?

Have these liberal programs helped Americans (blacks included) or not?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating *with selective out-of-context material*.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Counter it.
Click to expand...


I don't have to because you have not met the burden as well as others here have demolished your out-of-context arguments.

Fail.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all Dave...I am proposing that you help people who need help
> 
> Your basic premise that not a single social program ever helped a single black person is a blatant lie.
> 
> Your premise that because some poor people become dependent on the government that all poor people depend on government is also a lie
> 
> The truth is that millions of Americans both black and white have used these programs to lift themselves out of poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying I've said things I have not, in fact, said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then....maybe you can enlighten us?
> 
> Have these liberal programs helped Americans (blacks included) or not?
Click to expand...

Keeping people dependent on government is not helping them.  A hand out, not a hand up, is not helping them.  Giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish is not helping him.

But it does buy you votes.  And that, of course, is the rationale behind Dem support of social programs:  Buying votes with the taxpayers' money.

I have no problem with helping people who need help.  I do have a problem with helping people who can support themselves but choose not to.  According to the left, that makes me a terrible person.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying I've said things I have not, in fact, said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then....maybe you can enlighten us?
> 
> Have these liberal programs helped Americans (blacks included) or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keeping people dependent on government is not helping them.  A hand out, not a hand up, is not helping them.  Giving a man a fish instead of teaching him to fish is not helping him.
> 
> But it does buy you votes.  And that, of course, is the rationale behind Dem support of social programs:  Buying votes with the taxpayers' money.
> 
> I have no problem with helping people who need help.  I do have a problem with helping people who can support themselves but choose not to.  According to the left, that makes me a terrible person.
Click to expand...


Is providing low cost housing a handout or a hand up?
Is providing education and job training a handout?
Is providing healthcare and free lunches to poor children a handout?


What programs have the Republicans proposed that will teach poor people to fish?


----------



## IndependntLogic

daveman said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling someone else to prove your point for you is a massive fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh. I'm so distraught. I haven't done the research because it's beyond you guys to figure out whether the GOP has voted against things such as Affirmative Action, Equal pay etc...
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying that all those things are good or that I agree with them. Here, let me make this easier to figure out since you seem to be having a problem with this. Let's use simple evidence. People vote for who they think represents their interest best.
> 
> Now let me see. Hmmm. Which party has _owned_ the minority vote since the 70's? Yeah. That would be hard to figure out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you fail -- and it's someone else's fault.
> 
> Yep, you're a leftist.
Click to expand...


LOL! No it's that I simply don't care. 
If you're too stupid to figure out that the Dems have been the party of choice for minorities, I'm not particularly concerned with your definition of success or failure.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to post a one-sided tortorous rendering of important issues. When he posts the whole environment of the event, then we can talk.  But right now he is cheating *with selective out-of-context material*.  Jroc continues to make no sensible or defensible point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Counter it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to because you have not met the burden as well as others here have demolished your out-of-context arguments.
> 
> Fail.
Click to expand...


Your Lazyness is more like it. If you can't counter than don't bother to post becouse you waste my time.


----------



## Jroc

IndependntLogic said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh. I'm so distraught. I haven't done the research because it's beyond you guys to figure out whether the GOP has voted against things such as Affirmative Action, Equal pay etc...
> 
> BTW, I'm not saying that all those things are good or that I agree with them. Here, let me make this easier to figure out since you seem to be having a problem with this. Let's use simple evidence. People vote for who they think represents their interest best.
> 
> Now let me see. Hmmm. Which party has _owned_ the minority vote since the 70's? Yeah. That would be hard to figure out.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you fail -- and it's someone else's fault.
> 
> Yep, you're a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! No it's that I simply don't care.
> If you're too stupid to figure out that the Dems have been the party of choice for minorities, I'm not particularly concerned with your definition of success or failure.
Click to expand...


Which means absolutely nothing, give these same people a history test, they've been so brainwashed they'll tell you Lincoln was a democrat, which is why I started this thread a little history lesson for the libs


----------



## LAfrique

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History




While I am aware that no political ideology is without flaws, *I know from my observation that the republican party, a sect of political conservatism, has a history of barbarism, a history of disdain for ideas not theirs and of the notion that only they should be entitled to benefits. *

I live in Lone Star, the heart of US political conservatism, and know that republicans are very callous toward the poor, tough on crime when it involves the poor and are 10 times more likely to call the law (talk about not wanting big government!) on people for just about anything. *I do not understand how a people so indifferent towards Black and so quick to send Blacks to death row and without solid evidence can be considered "allies" of Black or African Americans.* Allies in what?


----------



## AquaAthena

rikules said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES and the ACLU have been the best friends of blacks
> 
> CONSERVATIVES have worked very hard to deny them rights and equality
Click to expand...


From Fredick Douglass himself: ( a black slave with common sense and intelligence and knowledge of history: )

Three-Fifths Clause: Setting the Record Straight 
By Bob Ellis on February 9th, 2011 

Those on the Left who are always looking for a reason to hate America often go to the Three-Fifths Clause of the U.S. Constitution to make the claim that it is a racist document.  However, their myopic approach completely ignores the context and reason for this provision in Article 1 Section 2.

The video below from historian David Bartons American History in Black and White presentation provides that context and background, setting the record straight.

*Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who became a leader in the abolitionist movement, was told by William Lloyd Garrison that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document.  Douglass originally took Garrison at his word, but later investigated for himself and concluded that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.*

I was, on the anti-slavery question,fully committed to (the) doctrine touching the pro-slavery character of the ConstitutionI advocated it with pen and tongue, according to the best of my abilityUpon a reconsideration of the whole subject, I became convinced that the Constitution of the United States not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery, but on the contrary, it is in its letter and spirit an anti-slavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence as the supreme law of the lad. Here was a radical change in my opinionsBrought directly, when I escaped from slavery, into contact with a class of abolitionists regarding the Constitution as a slaveholding instrument, it is not strange that I assumed the Constitution to be just what their interpretation made itBut I was now conducted to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States was not designed to maintain and perpetuate a system of slavery  especially as not one word can be found in the Constitution to authorize such a belief. 

The Three-Fifths Clause of Article 1 Section 2 deals only with representation, not the intrinsic worth of a person.

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

When we sat down to craft our constitution, many of the northern founders wanted to end slavery now that we were a new nation; we had not been permitted to end slavery while under the authority of the British crown.  But the southern states, economically dependent on slavery for their agricultural system, refused to join a union of states where slavery was outlawed.  The unity of our new country was hanging by a thread: deny the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and allow slaveryor uphold those principles and see the new nation fall apart at the start.  The Three-Fifths Compromise was born out of this dilemma.

Said Gouverneur Morris:

Upon what principle is it that slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote! But the admission of slaves into the representation comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and  in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity  tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice.

Slaves made up a huge number of the population of the South, and southern states saw proportional representation as an opportunity to boost their number of seats in congress.  But there was a serious logical and ethical problem with this idea: they were not treating slaves in a manner fitting for human beings.  What the southern states wanted to do was akin to counting their cars as people to get more seats in congress.

The anti-slavery founders (such as John Adams, George Mason, Luther Martin, Elbridge Gerry, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Aaron Burr, and others) saw an opportunity to keep the nation together while providing an incentive to the southern states to do away with slavery.  If the southern states freed their slaves, then each slave would go up in congressional representation value by two-fifths or 40%.  And if the South refused, the northern states would theoretically hold the advantage in congress and thus hopefully end slavery legally that much quicker.

Evil clings tenaciously on, and it would eventually cost the lives of more than half a million Americans to end the institution of slavery in the United States.

Americas history has never been perfectno peoples hasbut from the beginning most of our founders recognized that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. And the better spirits of our country would work tirelessly for generations and spill untold blood to see that these self-evident truths were realized for all Americans.


----------



## midcan5

Abortion is a personal choice and a right under our Constitutional law, only a republican stooge would use it as a political stick. 

"The Republican Party's inability to counter the impact of the Great Depression led to its ouster from power in 1933; in 1953 the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower brought a moderate wing of the party to prominence.*The party's platform remained conservative, emphasizing anticommunism, reduced government regulation of the economy, and lower taxes; many members also opposed civil rights legislation. In the 1950s the GOP gained new support from middle-class suburbanites and white Southerners disturbed by the integrationist policies of the national Democratic Party.*" Republican Party: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


----------



## Jroc

midcan5 said:


> Abortion is a personal choice and a right under our Constitutional law, only a republican stooge would use it as a political stick.
> 
> "The Republican Party's inability to counter the impact of the Great Depression led to its ouster from power in 1933; in 1953 the presidency of *Dwight D. Eisenhower *brought a moderate wing of the party to prominence.*The party's platform remained conservative, emphasizing anticommunism, reduced government regulation of the economy, and lower taxes; many members also opposed civil rights legislation. In the 1950s the GOP gained new support from middle-class suburbanites and white Southerners disturbed by the integrationist policies of the national Democratic Party.*" Republican Party: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-a-heartbeat-is-detectable-4.html#post3814184
> 
> "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey



*Umm....MLK voted for Eisenhower. He signed the 1957 Civil bill into law as most dems oppossed it including LBJ.*



> On September 9, 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Originally proposed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, the Act marked the first occasion since Reconstruction that the federal government undertook significant legislative action to protect civil rights. Although influential southern congressman whittled down the bill?s initial scope, it still included a number of important provisions for the protection of voting rights. It established the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department, and empowered federal officials to prosecute individuals that conspired to deny or abridge another citizen?s right to vote. Moreover, it also created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission charged with investigating allegations of voter infringement. But, perhaps most importantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 signaled a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights.



Civil Rights Act of 1957



> The Nixon administration 1)desegregated southern schools; 2) significantly increased funding for the enforcement of both group and individual civil rights; 3) achieved court approval of goals in hiring practices rather than quotas; and 4) clearly transformed the power and responsibility for civil rights to a court-enforced approach based on recommendations of permanent government affirmative agencies within the executive branch.
> I find this comment especially interesting and well put, from Mountain State University:
> 
> Nixon remains the only modern president whose personality, rhetoric, and image can be used with impunity to dismiss or ignore his concrete achievements, especially in the area of expanding civil rights enforcement in particular, and domestic reform in general.
> Johnson had a long history of voting with the South against civil rights, and prior to 1957, he voted 100% with the South, including voting against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.
> After the Civil Rights Acts, the southern Dixicrats who opposed civil rights, dissolved and most returned to the Democrat party, although if you listen to Democrat rhetoric you would think all Dixicrats became Republicans. Some did, but most did not, and to name a few that did not: Richard Russel, Mendell Rivers, William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore, Sr., the father of former Vice President Al Gore


.


MLK a Republican? Civil Rights in spite of Democrats : Stop The ACLU


*As far as Abortion goes, why do we ignore the racists roots of Planned Parenthood?..*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic[/ame]


----------



## IndependntLogic

"Which means absolutely nothing, give these same people a history test, they've been so brainwashed they'll tell you Lincoln was a democrat, which is why I started this thread a little history lesson for the libs 

Ah. This must be a shining example of the genuine respect Conservatives have for minorities.

Uh yeah. You're objective. Absolutely!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.



Umm... I never said MLK was a Republican, I said he "voted for Eisenhower" I don't really think he was either actually, He voted for who would help his cause at the time. and a much highier % of Dems oppsed the bill than did Republicans.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... I never said MLK was a Republican, I said he "voted for Eisenhower" I don't really think he was either actually, He voted for who would help his cause at the time. and a much highier % of Dems oppsed the bill than did Republicans.
Click to expand...


Would you have the percentages of North vs South opposed the bill?

That may be more telling on the actual demographics


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... I never said MLK was a Republican, I said he "voted for Eisenhower" I don't really think he was either actually, He voted for who would help his cause at the time. and a much highier % of Dems oppsed the bill than did Republicans.
Click to expand...


Let us know the % and # pro and con of Dems and Pubs by geography, and we will get a better context for this.  Eisenhower was not super on civil right at all; he considered his pick for the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, his worst choice of his administration.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... I never said MLK was a Republican, I said he "voted for Eisenhower" I don't really think he was either actually, He voted for who would help his cause at the time. and a much highier % of Dems oppsed the bill than did Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us know the % and # pro and con of Dems and Pubs by geography, and we will get a better context for this.  Eisenhower was not super on civil right at all; he considered his pick for the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, his worst choice of his administration.
Click to expand...



The Title of thread "*Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"* everybody knows southern democrats were more hostile to African Americans.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... I never said MLK was a Republican, I said he "voted for Eisenhower" I don't really think he was either actually, He voted for who would help his cause at the time. and a much highier % of Dems oppsed the bill than did Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know the % and # pro and con of Dems and Pubs by geography, and we will get a better context for this.  Eisenhower was not super on civil right at ?; he considered his pick for the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, his worst choice of his administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Title of thread "*Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"* everybody knows southern democrats were more hostile to African Americans.
Click to expand...


How hostile were southern republicans


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know the % and # pro and con of Dems and Pubs by geography, and we will get a better context for this.  Eisenhower was not super on civil right at ?; he considered his pick for the Chief Justice, Earl Warren, his worst choice of his administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Title of thread "*Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"* everybody knows southern democrats were more hostile to African Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How hostile were southern republicans
Click to expand...


Probably not many, and if they were for African American rights, They'd be stupid to get out there in front of the issue risking harm to themselves, their friends and family.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fClzzfMR3ek]1300 White Republicans Lynched by the KKK.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

After the Civil Rights movement, Republicans exploited southern racism to build a stronghold for the party in the south. This so called Southern Strategy formed a solid base that Republicans still rely on

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes


----------



## Jroc

> In the arsenal of the Democrats is a condemnation of Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called &#8220;Southern Strategy.&#8221;  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, yet unfairly deride Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party that began in the 1970's.  Nixon's "Southern Strategy&#8221; was an effort on his part to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in 2007.
> 
> As the co-architect of Nixon&#8217;s &#8220;Southern Strategy&#8221;, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article that can be found on the Internet at:  The Neocons and Nixon's southern strategy
> 
> In that article, Buchanan wrote that when Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column about the South (written by Buchanan), Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the &#8220;party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice&#8221;.
> 
> During the 1966 campaign, Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society.
> 
> Notably, the enforcement of affirmative action began with Richard Nixon&#8216;s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher who became know as &#8220;the father of affirmative action enforcement&#8221 that set the nation&#8216;s first goals and timetables.  Nixon was also responsible for the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1970&#8217;s, including the Equal Employment Act of 1972.
> 
> Fletcher, as president of the United Negro College Fund, coined the phrase &#8220;the mind is a terrible thing to waste.&#8221;  Fletcher was also one of the original nine plaintiffs in the famous &#8220;Brown v. Topeka Board of Education&#8221; decision.  Fletcher briefly pursued a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1995.
> 
> Nixon began his merit-based affirmative action program to overcome the harm caused by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who, after he was elected in 1912, kicked blacks out of federal government jobs and prevented blacks from obtaining federal contracts.  Also, while Wilson was president and Congress was controlled by the Democrats, more discriminatory bills were introduced in Congress than ever before in our nation&#8217;s history.  Today, Democrats have turned affirmative action into an unfair quota system that even most blacks do not support.



Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association


----------



## yidnar

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.


why do you claim to be a conservative ??


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> I give you facts you give me nothing. Sorry doesn't work with me....try again



He gave you something, you just didn't understand it. Here's the key: Republican does not equal conservative. At least not historically. In terms of civil rights and the interests of African-Americans, Republicans were for most of the party's history the _liberals_ on these issues, while many Democrats were the conservatives. That did not begin to change until the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the GOP began to court Southern white voters.

It's worth noting that all of your GOP civil-rights milestones occurred before that time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

yidnar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc continues to lie.  Most Dems did not oppose the bill, but a majority of dems from the South did.  I don't know about LBJ.  MLK's dad was a Republican.  Jroc needs to stay in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you claim to be a conservative ??
Click to expand...


Deflection and a poor one.  I am not Hard Right, I am not libertarian, neither of which are classical liberal positions.  CLs today is defined by Republicans like me, many centrists, and some Democrats.

Again, most Dems supported the bill but a majority of them from the South did not.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give you facts you give me nothing. Sorry doesn't work with me....try again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He gave you something, you just didn't understand it. Here's the key: Republican does not equal conservative. At least not historically. In terms of civil rights and the interests of African-Americans, Republicans were for most of the party's history the _liberals_ on these issues, while many Democrats were the conservatives. That did not begin to change until the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the GOP began to court Southern white voters.
> 
> It's worth noting that all of your GOP civil-rights milestones occurred before that time.
Click to expand...


 Wrong.. But take this opportunity to prove your opinion, if not that's all it is, not based on fact. Conservative Republicans are and have always been about liberty as I have pointed out and proven throughout this thread. You got something? Prove it or you can always take the Jake route and just make empty statements


----------



## bill5

Jroc said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
Click to expand...


LMAO

Thanks for the laugh.  This post was so ridiculous it made my night.  

Yeah!  The man oppressin again!  Conspiracy!  etc!  blah!

lol


----------



## Jroc

bill5 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.  This post was so ridiculous it made my night.
> 
> Yeah!  The man oppressin again!  Conspiracy!  etc!  blah!
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


Conspriacy? doesn't really matter does it? the numbers are accurate,yet liberal black democrats say nothing about this problem. Margret Sanger's legacy... she would be proud.


----------



## rightwinger

bill5 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.  This post was so ridiculous it made my night.
> 
> Yeah!  The man oppressin again!  Conspiracy!  etc!  blah!
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


I just love the compassion conservatives show for black babies........until they are born


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.  This post was so ridiculous it made my night.
> 
> Yeah!  The man oppressin again!  Conspiracy!  etc!  blah!
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love the compassion conservatives show for black babies........until they are born
Click to expand...


More empty statements from the empty head.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. But take this opportunity to prove your opinion, if not that's all it is, not based on fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
> Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business
> 
> That's just the two most striking examples. Oh, and let's not forget the so-called "Radical Republicans" of Reconstruction, who wanted to institute full racial equality by force of law in the 1870s. Or the fact that the first anti-trust laws and the first protections for the rights of working people were put in place under Republican administrations by Republican Congresses.
> 
> If you consider yourself a Republican, you might want to explore the history of your party, but prepare yourself for a shock. From its founding in the 1850s until at least the 1920s, the GOP was clearly America's liberal/progressive party, not its conservative party, while the Democrats, who were you may recall the party behind secession and the attempt to preserve slavery, were the conservatives.
> 
> The process by which this changed was long and complicated. (And so this will be a long post, but you did ask for facts.) It started in 1912. Prior to that year, a wave of public demand for reform was answered by Republicans (as was proper for the liberal/progressive party) under Theodore Roosevelt and W.H. Taft. But in 1912, TR decided to run for the presidency again after having been out of office for a term. He won most of the GOP primaries, but the Republican machine managed to steer the nomination to Taft anyway. Roosevelt stomped out of the convention, formed a third party and ran on that ticket, so there was a three-way race. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Democrat Woodrow Wilson adopted his own progressive agenda (because that was the tenor of the times) and won the election. So for the first time since Andrew Jackson, a Democrat in the White House governed as a liberal/progressive. This re-introduced the idea that Democrats could be liberals, which in the distant past they had been (the Democratic Party being older than the GOP).
> 
> The second part of the transformation came in the 1920s and 1930s. The public mood swung back to the right in the '20s, and a laissez-faire Republican was elected and, when he died in office, was followed by another pro-business Republican (Harding and Coolidge). He was followed in turn by a progressive Republican (Hoover). But this progressive-conservative back-and-forth was only in regard to business and workers' rights; on race and civil rights the GOP remained the progressive party and the Democrats the conservative one all through this period.
> 
> Hoover intended to move the GOP back towards the progressive side of the equation, but the Great Depression upset his plans and created an opportunity for TR's cousin running as a Democrat. Franklin Roosevelt's four-term electoral success cemented in place the association of the Democrats with progressivism on economic issues, but even so the GOP remained the progressive party on racial issues because the Dems had to deal with the influence of their own Southern pols where the Democrats commanded a huge majority.
> 
> The next part of the switch occurred in the 1960s. At that time, responding to civil rights agitation, LBJ and the non-Southern Democrats, together with many Republicans in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In fact, go here: Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and you can see that in both houses of Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 received the votes of more than 80% of Republicans, while receiving the votes of only 60+% of the Democrats. So at this point, on civil rights, the Republicans were still very much the liberal party, as they always had been since Lincoln's time.
> 
> When he signed the Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is said to have said, "I just gave the South to the Republicans for a generation." It was at this point that the final transformation of the GOP from a liberal to a conservative party began. Southern whites became disenchanted with the Democrats and an opportunity existed for Republicans to court them, which they began to do. In order to do this, the GOP had to soften its traditional sharply liberal stance on civil rights, which it did. Since that time, or at any rate since the end of the Nixon administration (the transformation was ongoing then), it has been the Democrats rather than the Republicans who were the champions of civil rights -- quite a role reversal considering the parties' histories.
> 
> There have been several further steps in the transformation, including the Reagan years, the rise of the religious right, and the Tea Party, but those were the principle stages.
> 
> So your suggestion that the Republicans have "always been about liberty" is, well, empty rhetoric devoid of fact -- precisely what you are accusing me of using. The GOP does not today stand for the same things it did originally. It is a radically changed party. And as I said, "conservative" and "Republican" do not mean the same thing, and were at one time even opposites.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are correct in that you are wrong, Jroc.  The GOP has slipped (yet again) on this issue.  Classical liberals who are conservatives are about liberty.  You are not one, therefore, you are merely ideologuing.

Jake (c'est moi) asked you for the evidence to support your opinion.  You have not done that, but you want others to refute your nonsense opinion with evidence.

Get to it, silly one, and start researching.


----------



## Jroc

> Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
> Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business



I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread, but here are a couple of  things for you to think about before you post more of you liberal wikipedia bullshit..


Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?




> Abraham Lincolns firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early *Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).*
> 
> Those who actually study Lincolns thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. He loved and admired the sentiments of those old-time men, our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles  *equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.*
> 
> Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by todays Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position. He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a living and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.
> 
> He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. *He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition. In a free society, a citizen can look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.*
> 
> Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.




Lincoln


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread



The point is that you used it it irrationally to make a false argument, because you didn't recognize that the Republican Party that did those things was a very different party than the GOP today, and (consistently on the issue of civil rights, less so on other issues) must be called LIBERAL.



> Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?



Which states? Both upheld the rights of some states and their citizens against those of other states and their citizens. Essentially, they protected the property of citizens of states that allowed slavery against confiscation by the governments of states that did not. The controversy was over whether the "property" in question should properly have been considered property.

Opposition to slavery was, at that time, a liberal position, while defense of slavery was a conservative position. Opposition to slavery was also a Republican position. The Republican Party, at that time, was therefore a liberal party.



> Those who actually study Lincoln&#8217;s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he &#8220;never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.&#8221;



The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was also a liberal (to some, a radical). Its language is definitely liberal and progressive overall, especially in the high-flying early part that is most often quoted.



> He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage.



Well, not quite. He believed that most people should and in the end would end up owning their own small farms or small businesses, and that working for a wage was only a waystation in life. (Certainly he believed in the opportunity to work for a wage as opposed to being a slave, but that's another subject.) The dispute between capital and labor would become important only after Lincoln's time, but here is what he said on the subject, somewhat prophetically:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

This idea would be put into practice by later Republicans, particularly Theodore Roosevelt, and is further evidence that in its early days the GOP was a progressive/liberal party.



> Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?



Yes, actually. Every one of those is a progressive position. Now, it's true that the last of them is sometimes perverted into a conservative argument by equating the economic privileges of the rich with "economic freedom" and totally forgetting the economic freedom of those they oppress, but in origin, economic liberty is certainly a liberal cause.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Thanks for the laugh.  This post was so ridiculous it made my night.
> 
> Yeah!  The man oppressin again!  Conspiracy!  etc!  blah!
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just love the compassion conservatives show for black babies........until they are born
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More empty statements from the empty head.
Click to expand...


Not empty, reality

Show me programs propsed by republicans that will provide care for 13 million black babies. Then we can talk about conservative compassion


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that you used it it irrationally to make a false argument, because you didn't recognize that the Republican Party that did those things was a very different party than the GOP today, and (consistently on the issue of civil rights, less so on other issues) must be called *LIBERAL.*
> 
> Exactly Classic liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which states? Both upheld the rights of some states and their citizens against those of other states and their citizens. Essentially, they protected the property of citizens of states that allowed slavery against confiscation by the governments of states that did not. The controversy was over whether the "property" in question should properly have been considered property.
Click to expand...


  Those acts would essentually legalized slavery in all the states, and it would have also allowed slavery in the new states




> Opposition to slavery was, at that time, a liberal position, while defense of slavery was a conservative position. Opposition to slavery was also a Republican position. The Republican Party, at that time, was therefore a liberal party.



Yep "classic liberal" they weren't called conservative at that time



> The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was also a liberal (to some, a radical). Its language is definitely liberal and progressive overall, especially in the high-flying early part that is most often quoted


.

Yeah really as long as you think so but post evidence


> He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage.





> Well, not quite. He believed that most people should and in the end would end up owning their own small farms or small businesses, and that working for a wage was only a waystation in life. (Certainly he believed in the opportunity to work for a wage as opposed to being a slave, but that's another subject.) The dispute between capital and labor would become important only after Lincoln's time, but here is what he said on the subject, somewhat prophetically:
> 
> 
> 
> "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
> 
> This idea would be put into practice by later Republicans, particularly Theodore Roosevelt, and is further evidence that in its early days the GOP was a progressive/liberal party


.

Yeah? he also said this, one of my favorites



> &#8220;You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
> You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
> You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
> You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
> You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
> You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.&#8221;
> &#8213; *Abraham Lincoln *








> Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?
> 
> 
> Yes, actually. Every one of those is a progressive position. Now, it's true that the last of them is sometimes perverted into a conservative argument by equating the economic privileges of the rich with *"economic freedom"* and totally forgetting the economic freedom of those they oppress, but in origin, economic liberty is certainly a liberal cause.





Umm.. wrong liberals seem to want to tell people how much is enough unless it is them of course.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JkyZx1LdQ]Obama: You've Made Enough Money - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History




That was an excellent post. You could go one step further and note that Republicans are better friends of African-Africans as well.


----------



## Jroc

Unkotare said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was an excellent post. You could go one step further and note that Republicans are better friends of African-Africans as well.
Click to expand...



In this thread I did mention that the liberals are responsible for the Banning of DDT, which has resulted in 10s of millions of needless deaths of children in Africa...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwqandRTSQ]John Stossel - DDT - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

And a certain Republican president initiated a program that has saved many millions upon millions of lives throughout Africa.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
> Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread, but here are a couple of  things for you to think about before you post more of you liberal wikipedia bullshit..
> 
> 
> Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early *Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).*
> 
> Those who actually study Lincoln&#8217;s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he &#8220;never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.&#8221; He loved and admired &#8220;the sentiments of those old-time men,&#8221; our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles &#8211; *equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.*
> 
> Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today&#8217;s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence &#8220;does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.&#8221; He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a &#8220;living&#8221; and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.
> 
> He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. *He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin &#8220;poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.&#8221; In a free society, a citizen can &#8220;look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.&#8221;*
> 
> Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln
Click to expand...


Yes, Lincoln the statist was a progressive, quite willing to use expanded powers of government to defend natural rights, equality before the law, and economic freedom.  Lincoln and Roosevelt were liberals by your interpretation, and there is nothing you can do about the natural intepretation and evidence that defends those facts.  Ukotare and Jroc mistake the classical liberalism of Lincoln (a true liberal in his day) for the depraved philosophy some on the Hard Right call conservatism today.

I am sending this one over to my friends at the U to use in their classes for the students to deconstruct.

They will learn that progressivism comes in both left and right leaning wings, and to be careful that they understand exactly what progressivism means: it is a political process of reform that effects society, economics, culture, and government.  The process can be either liberal or conservative.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Exactly Classic liberal



The distinction between "classical" and modern liberalism is a false one, and the claim that classical liberalism the same as modern conservatism even more false. The deception or error (depending on whether or not the falsehood is deliberate) comes from a confusion of means and ends.

The ends of liberalism, classical or modern, are constant: the liberty of the common man, and political and social and economic equality. At times, liberals have (and still do) pursue limitations on government as a means to this end. We still do. Ask any liberal what he thinks of the USA Patriot Act, for example, or of Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, or of government giving hand-outs to oil companies. At other times, though, liberals do (and always have) use government as a tool to restrain private power, which can also be a danger to the liberty of the common person. We always did. That's why the slave trade was outlawed during Jefferson's term of office.

Such changes as did exist between so-called "classical" and modern liberalism are explained by the differences in the societies where such liberals lived and spoke, which required somewhat different approaches. These differences are actually fairly trivial. Transport a classical liberal, such as Jefferson or Adam Smith, to the modern world and he would become a modern liberal, or even a socialist, once he had recovered from culture shock.



> Those acts would essentually legalized slavery in all the states, and it would have also allowed slavery in the new states



Not really. They just protected the rights of slaveowners where slavery was legal to their property, even when they traveled with their property to areas where slavery was not legal. If a slave-owner came to, say, Massachusetts with a slave, that slave could not legally be set free by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and if the slave escaped, the Massachusetts was legally bound to return the slave to his owner. It would still be illegal to buy a slave in Massachusetts, and the slave owner could not become a Massachusetts resident and continue to own slaves there.

Is there some reason why we're discussing these things? What do they have to do with the Republican Party, which opposed them? My personal opinion is that _Dred Scott_ was a legally sound decision even though I consider its effect abhorrent, and the Fugitive Slave Act was certainly within the authorized powers of Congress even though, again, I consider it and the entire institution of slavery a national disgrace. If I had lived back then, I would have been a Republican. 

The Lincoln quote you presented shows the danger of taking things out of context. In Lincoln's day, we were still an agrarian nation in the early stages of industrializing. Most people were neither wage owners nor wage payers. The conflict between capital and labor would not become a major national issue until after the Civil War and Reconstruction were over, and so any comments that Lincoln made on the subject were not on the issues he confronted. On the issues he did confront (e.g. slavery) he was a liberal, although not as liberal as some other Republicans of the time. A famous Republican leader who did confront capital-labor issues was Theodore Roosevelt. Here are some of the things he had to say on the subject:



			
				Theodore Roosevelt said:
			
		

> Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.
> 
> I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action.
> 
> It tires me to talk to rich men. You expect a man of millions, the head of a great industry, to be a man worth hearing; but as a rule they don't know anything outside their own business.
> 
> The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
> 
> The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.



Please note that when Roosevelt was denied that Republican nomination in 1912, he called the new party he founded the "Progressive" party, although it has come to be known more commonly by its "Bull Moose" nickname. You might want to check out the platform of that party, on which he ran for president that year:

Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

The party advocated campaign finance reform, women's suffrage, banning child labor and other labor rights legislation, etc. It was a progressive platform for the time, as the party name implies. And let's take a look at the Republican platform of the same year while we're at it:

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1912

Although somewhat more cautious about it than the Progressives, the Republicans also called for campaign finance reform and for strengthening anti-trust laws.

The Republican Party in its inception was a liberal party, and I mean a modern liberal party because it began in modern times. Today, it is not. Although the Republican Party today and that of the time of Lincoln or Roosevelt bear the same name, they are not the same party.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Ask any liberal what he thinks of the USA Patriot Act, for example, .





Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?



There are no liberals who voted for it. Just as Republican and conservative are not synonyms, neither are Democrat and liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no liberals who voted for it. Just as Republican and conservative are not synonyms, neither are Democrat and liberal.
Click to expand...


The Hard Right and the Hard Left will deny this.


----------



## Unkotare

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument? 

Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue?



None of them were liberals ON that one issue. Whether none of them were liberals on other issues I cannot say without more research than I to perform merely to refute an essentially irrelevant gotcha game. 



> Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?



It's my position that a liberal cannot condone violations of due process and civil liberties. Or, to be more precise, it's my position that violation of due process and of civil liberties is illiberal, even in the name of national security.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them were liberals ON that one issue. .
Click to expand...




Oh, _now_ it's "on that one issue"?  How narrowly do you think you'll need to qualify your declaration to hold on to it?


Do you consider Barbara Boxer liberal?


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?
> 
> Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?



The Dems who voted for the Patriot act were spineless pussies. In Post 9-11 America, they did not want to be labeled "unpatriotic". Republicans made it clear they would brand you as for the terrorists if you did not vote for it


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [
> 
> It's my position that a liberal cannot condone violations of due process and civil liberties..





Well, it's no problem then because the Patriot Act does not do that.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?
> 
> Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems who voted for the Patriot act were spineless pussies. In Post 9-11 America, they did not want to be labeled "unpatriotic".
Click to expand...



Or maybe in post-9/11 America even they realized their responsibility to uphold the oath they had taken when sworn into office.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Well, it's no problem then because the Patriot Act does not do that.



You will not find universal agreement on that statement.

The point, however, is that whether the Patriot Act violates due process and civil liberties, liberals don't approve of doing so, _and thus liberals often approve of limitation of government_. The specifics about the Patriot Act are illustrative of this point, serve no other purpose here, and are not worth going into in detail in the context of this thread.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?
> 
> Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dems who voted for the Patriot act were spineless pussies. In Post 9-11 America, they did not want to be labeled "unpatriotic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in post-9/11 America even they realized their responsibility to uphold the oath they had taken when sworn into office.
Click to expand...


They swore to uphold the Constitution. The Patriot act is a travesty of a Constitutional violation


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [
> 
> You will not find universal agreement on that statement..




Or any other statement.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [
> 
> The point, however, is that whether the Patriot Act violates due process and civil liberties, liberals don't approve of doing so, _and thus liberals often approve of limitation of government_. The specifics about the Patriot Act are illustrative of this point, serve no other purpose here, and are not worth going into in detail in the context of this thread.




Conservatives do not "approve" of violations of due process or civil liberties either, and you don't want to go into details because you are wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> [The Patriot act is a travesty of a Constitutional violation





No, it is not and all your emoting will not make it so.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Conservatives do not "approve" of violations of due process or civil liberties either



Often untrue. There are many historical instances of conservatives being willing to violate those principles in the name of national security or law enforcement. Start with the Alien and Sedition Act passed during the Adams administration, and go on through Jim Crow. To the extent that conservatives do support these rights, it's because liberals won the debate on the subject in the past, and as often happens (e.g. opposition to slavery) what was once a liberal cause has been adopted by conservatives as well.



> and you don't want to go into details because you are wrong.



I don't want to go into details because I don't want to be diverted into a long debate on a nit-picky side issue, which is of course the entire reason you are talking about it. As it doesn't matter a fig whether I am right or wrong about this specific unimportant detail, I will let you have the last word on the subject, and so defeat your real agenda.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The Patriot act is a travesty of a Constitutional violation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not and all your emoting will not make it so.
Click to expand...


Then why did they have to lie and come up with a bogus name like Patriot Act to mask it's constitutional violations?

It is "Patriotic" to give up your constitutional rights


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives do not "approve" of violations of due process or civil liberties either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Often untrue. There are many historical instances of conservatives being willing to violate those principles in the name of national security or law enforcement. .
Click to expand...




Here we see as your position continues to unravel you become more and more generalized. The uselessly broad "many historical instances" could, of course, be applied to liberals as well as conservatives who are actually governing. 

All of which drives you back to the "a terrorist can't be a Muslim" fallacy.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The Patriot act is a travesty of a Constitutional violation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not and all your emoting will not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they have to lie and come up with a bogus name like Patriot Act to mask it's constitutional violations?
> 
> It is "Patriotic" to give up your constitutional rights
Click to expand...




The Patriot Act does not violate the Constitution, no matter how hard you try to make yourself cry on cue.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [
> 
> I don't want to go into details because I don't want to be diverted into a long debate on a nit-picky side issue.




= you know you are wrong.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Here we see as your position continues to unravel you become more and more generalized. The uselessly broad "many historical instances" could, of course, be applied to liberals as well as conservatives who are actually governing.



I gave you some specific historical instances (the Alien and Sedition Act, Jim Crow), so your "uselessly broad" assertion is disingenuous (which is a fancy word for "big whopper"). I could add the McCarthy-era anti-communist witch-hunts:

House Un-American Activities Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or I could add the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, which was almost surely unconstitutional and which was promoted by conservatives and opposed by liberals (FDR himself, no liberal but no conservative either, straddled the fence).

Or we could talk about slavery itself if you like, opposed by liberals even when they personally practiced it (e.g. Jefferson) and supported by conservatives as a matter of law even when they personally opposed it (e.g. Adams).

It is not so simple a matter, of course, as to say that all conservatives opposed civil liberties all the time; this is a nation founded on liberal principles and many of those principles have become part of the national mythos and are upheld by everyone. What I do say is that when you find civil liberties being compromised, you will find conservatives at the forefront of the effort to do so and liberals in opposition. To some extent this is a matter of definition, but those who are "conservative" on this issue will also tend to be conservative on other issues, too.

Now, may I ask what this has to do with the history of the Republican Party? Is this entire discussion merely an effort by you to derail the thread?


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> I could add the McCarthy-era anti-communist witch-hunts:





You could, but that would be a bad idea since it turns out there actually were quite a number of Soviet-sponsored communist infiltrators at the time.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Or I could add the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, which was almost surely unconstitutional




Ah, you finally realized you had overlooked that when you made your first ill-considered generalization, eh? And exactly as predicted you were forced to try and portray FDR (of all people) as 'not really a liberal,' to try and salvage the few remaining shreds of your argument. Just as I pointed out, you are left with nothing but the "a Muslim can't be a terrorist" fallacy.















p.s. "almost" surely? wtf?


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> You could, but that would be a bad idea since it turns out there actually were quite a number of Soviet-sponsored communist infiltrators at the time.



So what you are saying is not that the violations of civil liberties by HUAC and other parts of the Red Scare didn't happen, but that they were justified.

This is more or less supporting my point, assuming you call yourself a conservative.

You still have not answered what any of this has to do with the history of the GOP.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Ah, you finally realized you had overlooked that when you made your first ill-considered generalization, eh? And exactly as predicted you were forced to try and portray FDR (of all people) as 'not really a liberal,' to try and salvage the few remaining shreds of your argument. Just as I pointed out, you are left with nothing but the "a Muslim can't be a terrorist" fallacy.



First of all, I didn't "overlook" that incident, I merely didn't list it, just as I didn't list a lot of other incidents in which civil liberties have been compromised. I neither intended nor pretended to give a comprehensive listing.

Secondly, there are many reasons not to consider Roosevelt very liberal. Years before Pearl Harbor, he was very slow to support the rights of labor unions, preferring a paternalistic approach. The First New Deal was very capital-friendly and amounted to Hoover Term 2. (I wouldn't consider Hoover a conservative, either, by the way.) He resisted through almost his entire time in office the Keynesian argument -- proven true by the war spending -- that massive federal investment was needed to jump-start the economy.

I realize that conservatives like to present FDR as an icon of liberalism or even a socialist, and some liberals present him as some kind of saint, but I'm talking about the real historical Roosevelt now, not the myth, either black or white.

And you still haven't said why any of this has anything to do with the history of the GOP.



> p.s. "almost" surely? wtf?



Well, I think it was, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. It's authoritative, I'm not, so even though I think the court was wrong I can only be "almost" sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dragon and Right Winger have pulled Unkotare's arguments to pieces, but Unkotare is as stubbornly immoral as JRK or Jroc when proven wrong: all three stand as if they were a pitcher on the mound having just watched their best pitch get wacked over the center field fence.  Then dance around yelling, "I just struck the bastard out!"  

They are either simply ignorant, or mentally feeble, or malignatly motivated, or all three.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Often untrue. There are many historical instances of conservatives being willing to violate those principles in the name of national security or law enforcement. Start with the Alien and Sedition Act passed during the Adams administration, and go on through Jim Crow. To the extent that conservatives do support these rights, it's because liberals won the debate on the subject in the past, and as often happens (e.g. opposition to slavery) what was once a liberal cause has been adopted by conservatives as well.


Who put Japanese-Americans into internment camps?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Or I could add the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, which was almost surely unconstitutional and which was promoted by conservatives and opposed by liberals (FDR himself, no liberal but no conservative either, straddled the fence).


FDR didn't oppose it.  He ordered it.  

Stop trying to rewrite history.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Dragon and Right Winger have pulled Unkotare's arguments to pieces, but Unkotare is as stubbornly immoral as JRK or Jroc when proven wrong: all three stand as if they were a pitcher on the mound having just watched their best pitch get wacked over the center field fence.  Then dance around yelling, "I just struck the bastard out!"
> 
> They are either simply ignorant, or mentally feeble, or malignatly motivated, or all three.


Oh, look -- Jake coming to the rescue of leftists.  Imagine that.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Stop trying to rewrite history.



I'm not rewriting history, nor did I say that FDR opposed the internment. I said he straddled the fence. That's correct.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/internment.pdf

Consider the context of racism and nativism on the West Coast, heightened by the uproar over Pearl Harbor. There was considerable danger of violence directed against Japanese-Americans. The internment was as much for their protection as for national security. Nevertheless, it arose from conservative roots and pressures, and was implemented by a president who was, if not really a conservative, not really a liberal, either.

And again, what does this have to do with the history of the GOP? Whether Roosevelt was a liberal, a conservative, or something else, he was certainly not a Republican.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or I could add the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, which was almost surely unconstitutional and which was promoted by conservatives and opposed by liberals (FDR himself, no liberal but no conservative either, straddled the fence).
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't oppose it.  He ordered it.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history.
Click to expand...


How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it. 

More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens


----------



## Mr.Nick

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party&#8217;s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, &#8220;A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.&#8221; And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: &#8220;Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.&#8221;
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, &#8220;On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, &#8220;Let My People go.&#8221; We&#8230;came to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, &#8220;The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation&#8230;
> &#8221;
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. &#8220;Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.&#8221; To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, &#8220;Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, &#8220;Mystic Years.&#8221;
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn&#8217;t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. &#8220;By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife&#8217;s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands&#8217; eves. By fear&#8230;.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves&#8230;and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, &#8220;&#8230;Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery&#8230;.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.&#8221;
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50&#8217;s and 60&#8217;s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn&#8217;t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



Republicans have always been historically the more consistent moderate party... Democrats have always been extremists in one way or another, from the KKK to the federalist party they've always been partisan - even today, today they're towing socialism.

Yeah recently (past 20 years) there was an influx of "fat cat" republicans but the tea party is dumping them left and right....

That was only a couple of decades. To put that into context the democratic party controlled the KKK for nearly a century .  Yeah the KKK acted as a modern day ACORN for the party for nearly 100 years, especially in the south.

The republicans were opposed because they opposed segregation and laws that prohibited interracial marriages and such....

Just remember it was LBJ that said: "I'll have every ****** voting democrat for the next 100 years."

Democrats treat the black man as an ignorant slave who's only use is to vote every two years....

That's how democrats treat blacks.

Blacks are nothing more than a voting base to progressive politicians....


----------



## Moonglow

Mr.Nick said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have always been historically the more consistent moderate party... Democrats have always been extremists in one way or another, from the KKK to the federalist party they've always been partisan - even today, today they're towing socialism.
> 
> Yeah recently (past 20 years) there was an influx of "fat cat" republicans but the tea party is dumping them left and right....
> 
> That was only a couple of decades. To put that into context the democratic party controlled the KKK for nearly a century .  Yeah the KKK acted as a modern day ACORN for the party for nearly 100 years, especially in the south.
> 
> The republicans were opposed because they opposed segregation, interracial marriages and such....
> 
> Just remember it was LBJ that said: "I'll have every ****** voting democrat for the next 100 years."
> 
> Democrats treat the black man as an ignorant slave who's only use is to vote every two years....
> 
> That's how democrats treat blacks.
> 
> Blacks are nothing more than a voting base to progressive politicians....
Click to expand...


Then how did the term rabid republicans begin?They were so extreme even Lincoln left the party and ran on the Union party for his second term?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Moonglow said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have always been historically the more consistent moderate party... Democrats have always been extremists in one way or another, from the KKK to the federalist party they've always been partisan - even today, today they're towing socialism.
> 
> Yeah recently (past 20 years) there was an influx of "fat cat" republicans but the tea party is dumping them left and right....
> 
> That was only a couple of decades. To put that into context the democratic party controlled the KKK for nearly a century .  Yeah the KKK acted as a modern day ACORN for the party for nearly 100 years, especially in the south.
> 
> The republicans were opposed because they opposed segregation, interracial marriages and such....
> 
> Just remember it was LBJ that said: "I'll have every ****** voting democrat for the next 100 years."
> 
> Democrats treat the black man as an ignorant slave who's only use is to vote every two years....
> 
> That's how democrats treat blacks.
> 
> Blacks are nothing more than a voting base to progressive politicians....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how did the term rabid republicans begin?They were so extreme even Lincoln left the party and ran on the Union party for his second term?
Click to expand...


Lincoln was a fucking tyrant and back then there were multiple parties...

Go read about Aron Burr.

Go read what he did after he won his duel against  Hamilton...


----------



## Moonglow

Mr.Nick said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans have always been historically the more consistent moderate party... Democrats have always been extremists in one way or another, from the KKK to the federalist party they've always been partisan - even today, today they're towing socialism.
> 
> Yeah recently (past 20 years) there was an influx of "fat cat" republicans but the tea party is dumping them left and right....
> 
> That was only a couple of decades. To put that into context the democratic party controlled the KKK for nearly a century .  Yeah the KKK acted as a modern day ACORN for the party for nearly 100 years, especially in the south.
> 
> The republicans were opposed because they opposed segregation, interracial marriages and such....
> 
> Just remember it was LBJ that said: "I'll have every ****** voting democrat for the next 100 years."
> 
> Democrats treat the black man as an ignorant slave who's only use is to vote every two years....
> 
> That's how democrats treat blacks.
> 
> Blacks are nothing more than a voting base to progressive politicians....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did the term rabid republicans begin?They were so extreme even Lincoln left the party and ran on the Union party for his second term?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a *fucking tyrant *and back then there were multiple parties...
> 
> Go read about Aron Burr.
> 
> Go read what he did after he won his duel against  Hamilton...
Click to expand...


I am sure Lincoln got laid, but his is not about Burr or any other pary, it is about republicans. but you do do a good jig


----------



## Mr.Nick

Moonglow said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did the term rabid republicans begin?They were so extreme even Lincoln left the party and ran on the Union party for his second term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a *fucking tyrant *and back then there were multiple parties...
> 
> Go read about Aron Burr.
> 
> Go read what he did after he won his duel against  Hamilton...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure Lincoln got laid, but his is not about Burr or any other pary, it is about republicans. but you do do a good jig
Click to expand...


My point was that 18th and 19th century democratically elected representatives were not the most sane people on the planet.... Many were extremists.

I used Burr to make my point...

You were the one that brought up olde Abe anyways.....

I suppose for one to understand a persons actions 160 years ago you would have to understand the political atmosphere at the time..

It's easy to point fingers but it's a lot harder to understand an era....


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not rewriting history, nor did I say that FDR opposed the internment. I said he straddled the fence. That's correct.
> 
> http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/internment.pdf
> 
> Consider the context of racism and nativism on the West Coast, heightened by the uproar over Pearl Harbor. There was considerable danger of violence directed against Japanese-Americans. The internment was as much for their protection as for national security. Nevertheless, it arose from conservative roots and pressures, and was implemented by a president who was, if not really a conservative, not really a liberal, either.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, that's right -- everything bad that ever happened came from the right.  




Dragon said:


> And again, what does this have to do with the history of the GOP? Whether Roosevelt was a liberal, a conservative, or something else, he was certainly not a Republican.


No kidding.  Just showing how your assertion that it's only conservatives willing to violate people's rights is utter crap.

Oh, and as for this road apple:
To the extent that conservatives do support these rights, it's because liberals won the debate on the subject in the past, and as often happens (e.g. opposition to slavery) what was once a liberal cause has been adopted by conservatives as well.​
That's crap, too.  A comparison of the two party platforms proves it.  Like I said, stop trying to rewrite history.  History itself proves you wrong.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/CivilRightsPlatforms.pdf


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or I could add the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, which was almost surely unconstitutional and which was promoted by conservatives and opposed by liberals (FDR himself, no liberal but no conservative either, straddled the fence).
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't oppose it.  He ordered it.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it.
> 
> More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens
Click to expand...

So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?


----------



## Moonglow

Mr.Nick said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a *fucking tyrant *and back then there were multiple parties...
> 
> Go read about Aron Burr.
> 
> Go read what he did after he won his duel against  Hamilton...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure Lincoln got laid, but his is not about Burr or any other pary, it is about republicans. but you do do a good jig
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was that 18th and 19th century democratically elected representatives were not the most sane people on the planet.... Many were extremists.
> 
> I used Burr to make my point...
> 
> You were the one that brought up olde Abe anyways.....
> 
> I suppose for one to understand a persons actions 160 years ago you would have to understand the political atmosphere at the time..
> 
> It's easy to point fingers but it's a lot harder to understand an era....
Click to expand...


no, I brought up rabid republicans cause a reply said they were not extremeists.Lincoln proved they were to radical for him.
I don't need a history lesson from a wacko


----------



## Moonglow

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't oppose it.  He ordered it.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it.
> 
> More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?
Click to expand...


no, war and racism was the reason


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't oppose it.  He ordered it.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it.
> 
> More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?
Click to expand...


It doesn't excuse any American who gave in to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria


----------



## daveman

Moonglow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it.
> 
> More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens
> 
> 
> 
> So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, war and racism was the reason
Click to expand...

So THAT excuses the Democrat for violating citizens' civil rights.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Republicans openly opposed the internment of Japanese Americans? Not many Americans opposed it.
> 
> More importantly, the courts did not stand up for the rights of American citizens
> 
> 
> 
> So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse any American who gave in to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria
Click to expand...

Uh huh.  That explains your passionate condemnation.

Oh, wait...


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that excuses the Democrat for doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse any American who gave in to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.  That explains your passionate condemnation.
> 
> Oh, wait...
Click to expand...


Sorry...not following you Dave


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't excuse any American who gave in to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  That explains your passionate condemnation.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry...not following you Dave
Click to expand...


Not really surprised.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could, but that would be a bad idea since it turns out there actually were quite a number of Soviet-sponsored communist infiltrators at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is not that the violations of civil liberties by HUAC and other parts of the Red Scare didn't happen, but that they were justified.
> .
Click to expand...




Investigation is not, in and of itself, a violation of civil liberties.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [ there are many reasons not to consider Roosevelt very liberal.





There we go, exactly as I said. You have no argument, you are just trying to exercise reality-altering powers you do not possess. If definitions and designations have no meaning but what you assign to fit your argument at any given moment then they are meaningless - like your argument here.

You have nothing to say.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly Classic liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The distinction between "classical" and modern liberalism is a false one, and the claim that classical liberalism the same as modern conservatism even more false. The deception or error (depending on whether or not the falsehood is deliberate) comes from a confusion of means and ends.
Click to expand...



 what a bunch of liberal bull. You've got to be one of Jake's friends "from the U"



> The ends of liberalism, classical or modern, are constant: the *liberty of the common man, *and political and social and economic equality. At times, liberals have (and still do) *pursue limitations on government as a means to this end*. We still do. Ask any liberal what he thinks of the USA Patriot Act, for example, or of Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, or of government giving hand-outs to oil companies. At other times, though, liberals do (and always have) use government as a tool to restrain private power, which can also be a danger to the liberty of the common person. We always did. That's why the slave trade was outlawed during Jefferson's term of office.




 Liberty means liberty for all men not only to people to whom the government defines as deserving of it, and for every so-called "limitation"  that you can cite I' can cite a 100 or more instances of expansion of government and it's power to control our lives there are probably 100 in the Obamacare law alone  



> Such changes as did exist between so-called "classical" and modern liberalism are explained by the differences in the societies where such liberals lived and spoke, which required somewhat different approaches. These differences are actually fairly trivial. Transport a classical liberal, such as Jefferson or Adam Smith, to the modern world and he would become a modern liberal, or even a socialist, once he had recovered from culture shock.




 That&#8217;s funny but these are just empty statements with nothing to back up such bull. You presume to tell me what Jefferson would have been today? That&#8217;s all it is your presumptions doesn't really mean much.  




> Those acts would essentually legalized slavery in all the states, and it would have also allowed slavery in the new states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. They just protected the rights of slaveowners where slavery was legal to their property, even when they traveled with their property to areas where slavery was not legal. If a slave-owner came to, say, Massachusetts with a slave, that slave could not legally be set free by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and if the slave escaped, the Massachusetts was legally bound to return the slave to his owner. It would still be illegal to buy a slave in Massachusetts, and the slave owner could not become a Massachusetts resident and continue to own slaves there.
Click to expand...


I know what the law says and if you are forced to send a person back into slavery once he is free that is legalized slavery in my book. And infringing on the rights of the non slave states. Over reaching federal government. Plus you can't be true to the founding of the country when there is slavery the founding documents made sure of that as Fredrick Douglass came to realize...



> Douglass publicly announced his change of opinion in the spring of 1851, but his most powerful statement of his revised view appears, fittingly enough, in his speech at an Independence Day celebration in 1852. In that speech, often considered the greatest of all abolitionist speeches, he excoriated America&#8217;s injustices no less vigorously than he ever had, but he took great care to distinguish America&#8217;s practice from its first principles and the actions of its subsequent generations from those of its Founders.
> 
> &#8220;The signers of the Declaration of Independence,&#8221; Douglass told his audience that day, &#8220;were brave men. They were great men too&#8230;. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes.&#8221; In his discerning view, however, the main source of their greatness&#8212;the virtue that enabled them to be more than revolutionaries, the Founders of a great republic&#8212;inhered not in their bravery but in their dedication to the &#8220;eternal principles,&#8221; the &#8220;saving principles,&#8221; set forth in the unique revolutionary document they dared to sign. &#8220;Your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately&#8230;and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you&#8230;. Mark them!&#8221;[15]
> 
> In truth, Douglass had long admired the Declaration and the Revolution; but now, having broken with the Garrisonian variant of abolitionism, he had come to admire the whole of the Founding, because he had come to judge the Constitution to be faithful to the saving principles of the Declaration. The charge of a pro-slavery Constitution was &#8220;a slander upon [the] memory&#8221; of the Framers, he contended; &#8220;interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.&#8221; Consider &#8220;the constitution according to its plain reading,&#8221; Douglass continued, &#8220;and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.



Frederick Douglass





> The Lincoln quote you presented shows the danger of taking things out of context. In Lincoln's day, we were still an agrarian nation in the early stages of industrializing. Most people were neither wage owners nor wage payers. The conflict between capital and labor would not become a major national issue until after the Civil War and Reconstruction were over, and so any comments that Lincoln made on the subject were not on the issues he confronted. On the issues he did confront (e.g. slavery) he was a liberal, although not as liberal as some other Republicans of the time. A famous Republican leader who did confront capital-labor issues was Theodore Roosevelt. Here are some of the things he had to say on the subject


:


 There you go again making stupid assumptions no person with half a brain could take that quote anyway but the way it was written. Like I said your personal opinions of what Lincoln would have meant today mean nothing. I have the actual words for anyone to read... you fail 




			
				Theodore Roosevelt said:
			
		

> Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.
> 
> I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action.
> 
> It tires me to talk to rich men. You expect a man of millions, the head of a great industry, to be a man worth hearing; but as a rule they don't know anything outside their own business.
> 
> The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
> 
> The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.





> Please note that when Roosevelt was denied that Republican nomination in 1912, he called the new party he founded the "Progressive" party, although it has come to be known more commonly by its "Bull Moose" nickname. You might want to check out the platform of that party, on which he ran for president that year:
> 
> Although somewhat more cautious about it than the Progressives, the Republicans also called for campaign finance reform and for strengthening anti-trust laws.
> 
> The Republican Party in its inception was a liberal party, and I mean a modern liberal party because it began in modern times. Today, it is not. Although the Republican Party today and that of the time of Lincoln or Roosevelt bear the same name, they are not the same party.



I never said they were exactly the same but gernally *Real* conservative Republicans stand for liberty and liberal Dems stand for central planning and bigger more powerfull federal government "Social Justice" is not the job of the federal governemtn to decide what that is as long as people are not discrminated against by the federal governemtn becouse of thier race thats were thir role should end Lincoln would not have had it any other way...



> &#8220;Every man's happiness is his own responsibility.&#8221;
> &#8213; *Abraham Lincoln *






> &#8220;That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence built.&#8221;
> &#8213; *Abraham Lincoln *


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> [
> 
> Well, I think it was, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.






And then in _Ex Parte Ando _they essentially reversed themselves right away. Then in 1983 the case was overturned. On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Then in 1998 Korematsu was awared the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

It seems "almost" has been taken care of.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Dragon and Right Winger have pulled Unkotare's arguments to pieces, but Unkotare is as stubbornly immoral as JRK or Jroc when proven wrong: all three stand as if they were a pitcher on the mound having just watched their best pitch get wacked over the center field fence.  Then dance around yelling, "I just struck the bastard out!"
> 
> They are either simply ignorant, or mentally feeble, or malignatly motivated, or all three.




Liberals like to think that reality is subject to their shallow declarations.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> There we go, exactly as I said. You have no argument, you are just trying to exercise reality-altering powers you do not possess.



I haven't been here very long, but if I stay around and you get to know me better you will come to learn that I have no respect for popular myths and prejudices. Franklin Roosevelt is not a liberal by definition; nobody is. The fact that many people who have no clear idea of what he was actually like or what he actually did consider him one -- these are people who have only a dim conception of history before they were born -- does not sway me.

You have no way of knowing this, because again I haven't been here long, but I have considered Roosevelt a moderate at best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) for a long time and have repeatedly said so in many other places and times. This is not an idea taken up for convenience here, it is what I actually believe. He deserves neither the odium of conservatives nor the canonization by liberals that he often receives. I have already stated why.



> You have nothing to say.



What I have to say (on this thread) is that today's Republican Party is not even close to the same entity as the Republican Party that stood firmly in support of civil rights and racial equality for a whole century. The original Republican Party was a progressive party, and in terms of civil rights it remained one until it began to change in the 1960s. That this is so, does not accrue to the credit of _today's_ Republican Party, and is no reason for African-Americans or anyone who believes in civil rights to vote Republican today.

If you wish to take issue with this claim, take issue with this claim and stop playing pointless games.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon and Right Winger have pulled Unkotare's arguments to pieces, but Unkotare is as stubbornly immoral as JRK or Jroc when proven wrong: all three stand as if they were a pitcher on the mound having just watched their best pitch get wacked over the center field fence.  Then dance around yelling, "I just struck the bastard out!"
> 
> They are either simply ignorant, or mentally feeble, or malignatly motivated, or all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals like to think that reality is subject to their shallow declarations.
Click to expand...


Unkotare, like Jroc and JRK, projects his failings on others.  The fact is that they fail in this thread.  Lincoln was not a conservative as they understand the modern term.  Neither was TR.  They are historically both classical liberals, who would have nothing to do with the Hard Right today.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> You have no way of knowing this, because again I haven't been here long, but I have considered Roosevelt a moderate at best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) for a long time and have repeatedly said so in many other places and times. .






I don't give half a shit what you "consider." You are blatantly trying to alter reality to fit your argument and it is completely illegitimate.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon and Right Winger have pulled Unkotare's arguments to pieces, but Unkotare is as stubbornly immoral as JRK or Jroc when proven wrong: all three stand as if they were a pitcher on the mound having just watched their best pitch get wacked over the center field fence.  Then dance around yelling, "I just struck the bastard out!"
> 
> They are either simply ignorant, or mentally feeble, or malignatly motivated, or all three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals like to think that reality is subject to their shallow declarations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare, like Jroc and JRK, projects his failings on others.  The fact is that they fail in this thread.  Lincoln was not a conservative as they understand the modern term.  Neither was TR.  They are historically both classical liberals, who would have nothing to do with the Hard Right today.
Click to expand...




Once again we see the dishonest democrats running hard from the clear and shameful legacy of their own party, thinking they can really rewrite history from Lincoln through 1964, Robert Byrd, and to today. They are desperate to do so because otherwise their false accusations and continuing agenda of oppression are indefensible even to themselves.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> what a bunch of liberal bull. You've got to be one of Jake's friends "from the U"



Never met him before, but you're going to find that well-educated people tend to lean left. Reality has a liberal bias. 



> Liberty means liberty for all men not only to people to whom the government defines as deserving of it



Precisely. All liberals believe exactly that, always have, and always will. (Nowadays, we would say "men AND women." Feminism is a more recent development than classical liberalism, though, and those old liberals were often not very liberal in that regard.) Also, all liberals believe that the greatest danger to liberty is individuals holding too much power. That's true whether the power comes from government or outside it. To prevent one person holding too much power from the government, we champion separation of powers, democratic accountability, and protection of individual rights. To prevent one person holding too much power from outside the government, we champion regulation of business, leveling of wealth, and protection of the rights of working people. It's all in service to the same goal.



> and for every so-called "limitation"  that you can cite I' can cite a 100 or more instances of expansion of government and it's power to control our lives there are probably 100 in the Obamacare law alone



Why don't you get specific here, and I will show you how those "expansions of government" are in service to the same ends as the restraints of government that liberals also believe in.

Truth is, liberals are not believers in either big government or limited government as an end in itself, but will use either one as appropriate to protect liberty and promote equality.



> I know what the law says and if you are forced to send a person back into slavery once he is free that is legalized slavery in my book. And infringing on the rights of the non slave states.



Well, I would agree as far as my own values are concerned, naturally -- I am hardly an advocate of slavery! But you have to understand that in those days, slavery was a burning issue, not a dead one. If you advocated for abolishing it, you were a liberal (on that issue); if you wanted to preserve it you were a conservative. Today, of course, you won't find conservatives in favor of chattel slavery, because the issue is dead; our side won, and it is now a universal value rather than a political issue.

There's not much point in quoting liberals of the time, like Frederick Douglass, against the institution of slavery. I fully agree with the man, and with Lincoln that the nation could not ultimately remain half slave and half free; I consider the Fugitive Slave Act, and all other attempts to compromise around the issue, to have been futile, and I think the 600,000 casualties suffered in the Civil War pretty much proves that.

My only point in connection with this is that the Republican Party, which in its inception was an anti-slavery party, was therefore the _liberal_ party at that time. It was the Democrats -- the ones in the North who didn't want to rock the boat or make such a radical change as abolishing slavery, as well as the ones in the South who were so determined to preserve the institution that they sundered the union -- who were the conservatives.



> I never said they were exactly the same but gernally *Real* conservative Republicans stand for liberty and liberal Dems stand for central planning and bigger more powerfull federal government



"Real conservative Republicans" certainly do not stand for MY liberty. Maybe they stand for the liberty of my boss (if I had a boss) -- at my expense, by failing to protect my rights as an employee. Maybe they stand for the liberty of big corporations to maximize their profits -- at the expense of their employees outsourced out of a job, or of the communities suffering their environmental degradations. Maybe they stand for the liberty of the very rich to accumulate as much private fortune as possible -- at the expense of those who would benefit from having some of that accumulated money invested in job-creating wealth-producing ventures and spread around a bit.

"Liberty" means nothing unless one defines whose liberty to do what one is talking about. Often, one person's liberty means another person's enslavement. For an obvious example, one person's liberty to own slaves cannot coexist with another person's liberty not to be a slave. Extrapolate that extreme example out to anything else: person A's liberty to oppress person B is incompatible with person B's freedom from oppression.

Conservatives, in such conflicts, stand with person A. Liberals stand with person B. What that means in terms of "expansion of government" depends on the exact circumstances. When it's the government that A is using to oppress B, then the power of the government to do that needs to be restrained. But when A is using his own private power to oppress B, and the government can be used to restrain A, then it should be so used.

The equation "liberal = big government" is completely simplistic and, as stated, not true. It isn't liberals who have generally championed the huge, overextended military establishment we have today, for example. It isn't liberals who want to re-criminalize abortion and in other ways have the government butt into people's private lives.

On the other hand, it is liberals who want to use government to regulate business so as to prevent both abuses against people's rights and the kind of collapse we had in '08. So liberals and conservatives both like big government in some areas and dislike it in others. The common factor lies elsewhere, and size of government may not be used as a definition.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare: Thanks for the update regarding Supreme Court decisions in re the Nissei and Issei. You are correct there, all ambiguity may be removed and it was indeed unconstitutional.

I am not a Democrat. I am a liberal. The two are not the same. I am not, therefore, running from the "shameful legacy" of MY party, because it is not my party. Actually, I am not running from anything. But I do feel free to criticize Democrats when they deserve it, as is often the case.

Barack Obama, by the way, is not a liberal either, or at least he is not governing as one.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> I don't give half a shit what you "consider."



Then you are the one who is saying nothing.



> You are blatantly trying to alter reality to fit your argument and it is completely illegitimate.



That Roosevelt was a liberal is not "reality." It is the opinion of people who don't know squat. I am not "altering reality." I am disagreeing with an ignorant opinion. If YOU think he was a liberal, then your opinion is ignorant, too.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Never met him before, but you're going to find that well-educated people tend to lean left. Reality has a liberal bias.














Your distorted view of reality has a liberal bias.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give half a shit what you "consider."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are the one who is saying nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are blatantly trying to alter reality to fit your argument and it is completely illegitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Roosevelt was a liberal is not "reality." It is the opinion of people who don't know squat. I am not "altering reality." I am disagreeing with an ignorant opinion. If YOU think he was a liberal, then your opinion is ignorant, too.
Click to expand...


Did you know that stamping your feet and pouting is not a compelling argument?


----------



## Dragon

Ah, Daveman -- I forgot to exclude business degrees, and speak only of real educations. Thank you for the correction.


----------



## Unkotare

Ok, it seems clear by now that Dragon is playing in his own little Dragonworld where he can make anything mean whatever he wants it to mean. Not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Ok, it seems clear by now that Dragon is playing in his own little Dragonworld where he can make anything mean whatever he wants it to mean. Not to be taken seriously.



In that case, you may feel free to go away and stop playing your silly games at any time. Won't bother me a bit.

Or, if you feel like it, you can try to actually address my point on this thread, which, in case you've forgotten, is that the Republican Party of today is dramatically different from the Republican Party of the 1850s -1960s that stood so firmly in support of civil rights and racial equality. Everything you've addressed to me on this thread so far has had bugger-all to do with that and has therefore been either a diversion or, as the above, _argumentum ad hominem_.

May I assume, since you refuse to address it, that you agree the GOP of today is hardly the GOP of the past, and that consequently the OP was nonsense?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Did you know that stamping your feet and pouting is not a compelling argument?



Did you know that that isn't one, either?

EDIT: Here's a contemporary view of Roosevelt by a genuine liberal. http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_2/john_t_flynn.php

"Flynn believed that Herbert Hoover had allowed the Great Depression to occur by his failure to regulate the stock market. (I realize that some revisionists, especially libertarians, will disagree with this explanation of the Depression, but I'm profiling Flynn, not libertarianism.) And so, in 1932, Flynn voted for Franklin Roosevelt for president and against Hoover, who he sarcastically dubbed "the great Miracle Man."

"However, Flynn soon became disenchanted with Roosevelt's New Deal, because of Wall Street-connected individuals appointed to positions by FDR, and because of several New Deal programs, including the NRA, which he saw as favoring big business. . . .

"Flynn also came to agree with Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas that Roosevelt was "a born militarist." By 1936, asserted that Roosevelt would "do his best to entangle us" in a coming European war. That year, Flynn voted for Norman Thomas for president as a protest against Roosevelt. Flynn came to believe that Roosevelt was working with conservative, big-business, Wall Street interests to bring about economic recovery based on war scares."

Here's a bit more: http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/liberal-criticism-of-franklin-roosevelt-and-the-new-deal/

"In my examination of the historical record, it is clear that Roosevelt endured vicious, unrelenting attacks from his left that often exceeded the level of vitriol directed at President Obama, and correspondingly, Roosevelt was not viewed by liberals of his day with the adulation and reverence liberals view him today.

"In fact, it&#8217;s pretty remarkable how closely the attacks Roosevelt experienced from his left echo the attacks that liberals make against Obama today.  There was criticism of Roosevelt for being too close to Wall Street, criticism of the New Deal&#8217;s pragmatism and non-ideological approach, criticism of the New Deal for not going nearly far enough, criticism of the New Deal and Roosevelt as preferring conservatism to liberalism, and so on.

"What I found in my research not only painted a picture of the relationship between liberals, the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt that is far more complex and nuanced than the mythologized and often distorted version of that era you often find in the liberal blogosphere and elsewhere, it also has led me to view the current schism among liberals as less severe or unique than I previously thought.

"First, let me provide some context.  As I&#8217;ve mentioned, the relationship between Roosevelt and the liberals of his day was not as smooth or happy as many of you might have believed.  The sort of adulation with which some liberals today treat Roosevelt has created the impression of him as a liberal superman.  This could not be further from the truth, and this was especially the case beginning in late 1934."

That entire article is worth reading, in fact. Because Roosevelt led the nation through what was surely its second-greatest crisis to date, myths are created around him, but the reality is not the myth. He was not what you could call a moss-back right-winger, but he was far from the icon of liberalism that many believe today.


----------



## Unkotare

democrats just can't seem to get over the FACT that they have always lagged far behind the Republican Party in championing civil rights and racial equality. What democrats have been opposed to for most of their history they fail to understand even today.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> democrats just can't seem to get over the FACT that they have always lagged far behind the Republican Party in championing civil rights and racial equality.



That is not a fact, because this is 2011, not 1963. It was a fact, decades ago. Today, it's not.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> democrats just can't seem to get over the FACT that they have always lagged far behind the Republican Party in championing civil rights and racial equality. What democrats have been opposed to for most of their history they fail to understand even today.



What has the republican party done to champion the civil rights of gays? How about the Civil Rights of Muslims?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals like to think that reality is subject to their shallow declarations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare, like Jroc and JRK, projects his failings on others.  The fact is that they fail in this thread.  Lincoln was not a conservative as they understand the modern term.  Neither was TR.  They are historically both classical liberals, who would have nothing to do with the Hard Right today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SNIP  *.
Click to expand...


A true Republican like me can never be a Democrat, because I am a classical liberal.  Unkotare is trying to pretend that progressives like Lincon and TR can come in Republican colors.  They were not Hard Right pretend-conservatives as those today.  Not only would Lincoln and TR tell Unko and his buddies to get lost, so would Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, Reagan and Bush the Elder.  Everyone of these GOP leaders would be too left for Ryan and the wierdos.

Unko, you are not historically relevant, you will not be allowed to revise without metaphoically getting kicked in the ass.  Robert Byrd did shameful things then spent his life reprenting them.  Strom simply changed parties and pretend he was not as asshole and never recognized his black daughter.

You fools will never learn, but you will be schooled by your betters in the GOP.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hard Right wacks, read this.

Progressivism is a process of educational, economic, governmental, social, and cultural reform through political processes.  Progressivism has a conservative wing as well as a more liberal impulse.

Neo-con progressive imperialism in Iraq is a conservative example.  Trying to pass anti-gay marriage amendments at the national level is a conservative example.  Trying to block people from voting at the state levels is another example.

So understand: progressivism is a political process for reform.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> A true Republican like me can never be a Democrat, because I am a classical liberal.  Unkotare is trying to pretend that progressives like Lincon and TR can come in Republican colors.  They were not Hard Right pretend-conservatives as those today.  Not only would Lincoln and TR tell Unko and his buddies to get lost, so would Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, Reagan and Bush the Elder.  Everyone of these GOP leaders would be too left for Ryan and the wierdos.
> 
> Unko, you are not historically relevant, you will not be allowed to revise without metaphoically getting kicked in the ass.  Robert Byrd did shameful things then spent his life reprenting them.  Strom simply changed parties and pretend he was not as asshole and never recognized his black daughter.
> 
> You fools will never learn, but you will be schooled by your betters in the GOP.





JakeStarkey said:


> I got on Obama about not pushing through a single payer health care, got on him about not bringing the Iraq troops home more quickly, plus a few other things.


True Republicans don't criticize Obama for not being far enough left, boy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But you are not a Republican, daveman, so you don't count.

Obama has failed in part because he has not satisified his base.  We are going to fail in the GOP because we will not take care of the health care problem either.  The fact remains that both parties will fail until they deal with it.

Now, that is a deflection.  The OP is that GOP is the real ally of blacks: not since Nixon.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> But you are not a Republican, daveman, so you don't count.


You don't get to dictate what people believe, boy.  That's what leftists do, by the way.


JakeStarkey said:


> Obama has failed in part because he has not satisified his base.  We are going to fail in the GOP because we will not take care of the health care problem either.  The fact remains that both parties will fail until they deal with it.
> 
> Now, that is a deflection.  The OP is that GOP is the real ally of blacks: not since Nixon.


Even while you claim to be a Republican, you spout leftist talking points.


----------



## Dragon

Jake, I have to agree you don't seem much like a Republican.

Except maybe one from sixty years ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many of the older GOP are much like me.  We abhor the Paul Ryan type clones that simply spout the old class warfare nonsense.  We understand that we are not going back to a pre-1964 society, that we have to work with women and minorities to address their claims better, that DADT and DOMA are better off going way forever, and most importantly, to end the Progressive right-wing neo-conservatism of the Bushies that nearly broke our economy along with the stupid spend-big programs of McCain and education cartel. 

We need better leaders.  Romney is one, who demonstrated compassion and health care can co-exist in Massachusetts, that people are more important than businesses.  Perry is another, who is far more progressive than the far right wing has any idea.

Perry and Romney suffer the same problem as does Obama: they are too beholdedn to Big Business.

If we continue to define ourselves by the davemans, etc., the Dems will win the class warfare.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Many of the older GOP are much like me.  We abhor the Paul Ryan type clones that simply spout the old class warfare nonsense.  We understand that we are not going back to a pre-1964 society, that we have to work with women and minorities to address their claims better, that DADT and DOMA are better off going way forever, and most importantly, to end the Progressive right-wing neo-conservatism of the Bushies that nearly broke our economy along with the stupid spend-big programs of McCain and education cartel.
> 
> We need better leaders.  Romney is one, who demonstrated compassion and health care can co-exist in Massachusetts, that people are more important than businesses.  Perry is another, who is far more progressive than the far right wing has any idea.
> 
> Perry and Romney suffer the same problem as does Obama: they are too beholdedn to Big Business.
> 
> If we continue to define ourselves by the davemans, etc., the Dems will win the class warfare.


No one believes your crap.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman, no one cares what you believe or think, unless it is a Crusader or an OddOne or a bigrebnc.

You guys simply don't count in the party, other than we want your votes.  Watch the primary fights next year as we finally can force some of you Hard Rights out of power.

Been a long time coming, going to be worth it.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a bunch of liberal bull. You've got to be one of Jake's friends "from the U"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never met him before, but you're going to find that well-educated people tend to lean left. Reality has a liberal bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty means liberty for all men not only to people to whom the government defines as deserving of it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely. All liberals believe exactly that, always have, and always will. (Nowadays, we would say "men AND women." Feminism is a more recent development than classical liberalism, though, and those old liberals were often not very liberal in that regard.) Also, all liberals believe that the greatest danger to liberty is individuals holding too much power. That's true whether the power comes from government or outside it. To prevent one person holding too much power from the government, we champion separation of powers, democratic accountability, and protection of individual rights. To prevent one person holding too much power from outside the government, we champion regulation of business, leveling of wealth, and protection of the rights of working people. It's all in service to the same goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you get specific here, and I will show you how those "expansions of government" are in service to the same ends as the restraints of government that liberals also believe in.
> 
> Truth is, liberals are not believers in either big government or limited government as an end in itself, but will use either one as appropriate to protect liberty and promote equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the law says and if you are forced to send a person back into slavery once he is free that is legalized slavery in my book. And infringing on the rights of the non slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I would agree as far as my own values are concerned, naturally -- I am hardly an advocate of slavery! But you have to understand that in those days, slavery was a burning issue, not a dead one. If you advocated for abolishing it, you were a liberal (on that issue); if you wanted to preserve it you were a conservative. Today, of course, you won't find conservatives in favor of chattel slavery, because the issue is dead; our side won, and it is now a universal value rather than a political issue.
> 
> There's not much point in quoting liberals of the time, like Frederick Douglass, against the institution of slavery. I fully agree with the man, and with Lincoln that the nation could not ultimately remain half slave and half free; I consider the Fugitive Slave Act, and all other attempts to compromise around the issue, to have been futile, and I think the 600,000 casualties suffered in the Civil War pretty much proves that.
> 
> My only point in connection with this is that the Republican Party, which in its inception was an anti-slavery party, was therefore the _liberal_ party at that time. It was the Democrats -- the ones in the North who didn't want to rock the boat or make such a radical change as abolishing slavery, as well as the ones in the South who were so determined to preserve the institution that they sundered the union -- who were the conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were exactly the same but gernally *Real* conservative Republicans stand for liberty and liberal Dems stand for central planning and bigger more powerfull federal government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Real conservative Republicans" certainly do not stand for MY liberty. Maybe they stand for the liberty of my boss (if I had a boss) -- at my expense, by failing to protect my rights as an employee. Maybe they stand for the liberty of big corporations to maximize their profits -- at the expense of their employees outsourced out of a job, or of the communities suffering their environmental degradations. Maybe they stand for the liberty of the very rich to accumulate as much private fortune as possible -- at the expense of those who would benefit from having some of that accumulated money invested in job-creating wealth-producing ventures and spread around a bit.
> 
> "Liberty" means nothing unless one defines whose liberty to do what one is talking about. Often, one person's liberty means another person's enslavement. For an obvious example, one person's liberty to own slaves cannot coexist with another person's liberty not to be a slave. Extrapolate that extreme example out to anything else: person A's liberty to oppress person B is incompatible with person B's freedom from oppression.
> 
> Conservatives, in such conflicts, stand with person A. Liberals stand with person B. What that means in terms of "expansion of government" depends on the exact circumstances. When it's the government that A is using to oppress B, then the power of the government to do that needs to be restrained. But when A is using his own private power to oppress B, and the government can be used to restrain A, then it should be so used.
> 
> The equation "liberal = big government" is completely simplistic and, as stated, not true. It isn't liberals who have generally championed the huge, overextended military establishment we have today, for example. It isn't liberals who want to re-criminalize abortion and in other ways have the government butt into people's private lives.
> 
> On the other hand, it is liberals who want to use government to regulate business so as to prevent both abuses against people's rights and the kind of collapse we had in '08. So liberals and conservatives both like big government in some areas and dislike it in others. The common factor lies elsewhere, and size of government may not be used as a definition.
Click to expand...


For some reason this guy thinks these long bloviating post are impressive. The title of this thread is "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" which you cannot dispute. Republicans were liberal. Democrats were conservative blah&#8230;Blah&#8230;blah..The facts are that Republicans have been throughout history been the true allies of African Americans, and as you see from those Lincoln quotes he was nothing like the liberals of today. Today&#8217;s liberals are as your post proves, want to demonize business and the jobs creators so as to attempt to redistribute wealth and even out outcomes, but that is not what this thread is about.

 This thread is about what the title says and the only thing that dems have done for blacks since the founding of the party was LBJ helping to pass the &#8217;64 civil rights act, that&#8217;s pretty much it. All the rest of his liberal agenda as failed the black community and helped to destroy the black family, of course he got help with that from the race hustlers. Sad really, instead of working to build up the black population in this country they make money off producing victims and these victims are part of the base of the democrat party congradulations. The current state of African Americans in this country can be traced directly back to the democrat party and the policies of *todays* liberals


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a bunch of liberal bull. You've got to be one of Jake's friends "from the U"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never met him before, but you're going to find that well-educated people tend to lean left. Reality has a liberal bias.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely. All liberals believe exactly that, always have, and always will. (Nowadays, we would say "men AND women." Feminism is a more recent development than classical liberalism, though, and those old liberals were often not very liberal in that regard.) Also, all liberals believe that the greatest danger to liberty is individuals holding too much power. That's true whether the power comes from government or outside it. To prevent one person holding too much power from the government, we champion separation of powers, democratic accountability, and protection of individual rights. To prevent one person holding too much power from outside the government, we champion regulation of business, leveling of wealth, and protection of the rights of working people. It's all in service to the same goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you get specific here, and I will show you how those "expansions of government" are in service to the same ends as the restraints of government that liberals also believe in.
> 
> Truth is, liberals are not believers in either big government or limited government as an end in itself, but will use either one as appropriate to protect liberty and promote equality.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I would agree as far as my own values are concerned, naturally -- I am hardly an advocate of slavery! But you have to understand that in those days, slavery was a burning issue, not a dead one. If you advocated for abolishing it, you were a liberal (on that issue); if you wanted to preserve it you were a conservative. Today, of course, you won't find conservatives in favor of chattel slavery, because the issue is dead; our side won, and it is now a universal value rather than a political issue.
> 
> There's not much point in quoting liberals of the time, like Frederick Douglass, against the institution of slavery. I fully agree with the man, and with Lincoln that the nation could not ultimately remain half slave and half free; I consider the Fugitive Slave Act, and all other attempts to compromise around the issue, to have been futile, and I think the 600,000 casualties suffered in the Civil War pretty much proves that.
> 
> My only point in connection with this is that the Republican Party, which in its inception was an anti-slavery party, was therefore the _liberal_ party at that time. It was the Democrats -- the ones in the North who didn't want to rock the boat or make such a radical change as abolishing slavery, as well as the ones in the South who were so determined to preserve the institution that they sundered the union -- who were the conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were exactly the same but gernally *Real* conservative Republicans stand for liberty and liberal Dems stand for central planning and bigger more powerfull federal government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Real conservative Republicans" certainly do not stand for MY liberty. Maybe they stand for the liberty of my boss (if I had a boss) -- at my expense, by failing to protect my rights as an employee. Maybe they stand for the liberty of big corporations to maximize their profits -- at the expense of their employees outsourced out of a job, or of the communities suffering their environmental degradations. Maybe they stand for the liberty of the very rich to accumulate as much private fortune as possible -- at the expense of those who would benefit from having some of that accumulated money invested in job-creating wealth-producing ventures and spread around a bit.
> 
> "Liberty" means nothing unless one defines whose liberty to do what one is talking about. Often, one person's liberty means another person's enslavement. For an obvious example, one person's liberty to own slaves cannot coexist with another person's liberty not to be a slave. Extrapolate that extreme example out to anything else: person A's liberty to oppress person B is incompatible with person B's freedom from oppression.
> 
> Conservatives, in such conflicts, stand with person A. Liberals stand with person B. What that means in terms of "expansion of government" depends on the exact circumstances. When it's the government that A is using to oppress B, then the power of the government to do that needs to be restrained. But when A is using his own private power to oppress B, and the government can be used to restrain A, then it should be so used.
> 
> The equation "liberal = big government" is completely simplistic and, as stated, not true. It isn't liberals who have generally championed the huge, overextended military establishment we have today, for example. It isn't liberals who want to re-criminalize abortion and in other ways have the government butt into people's private lives.
> 
> On the other hand, it is liberals who want to use government to regulate business so as to prevent both abuses against people's rights and the kind of collapse we had in '08. So liberals and conservatives both like big government in some areas and dislike it in others. The common factor lies elsewhere, and size of government may not be used as a definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some reason this guy thinks these long bloviating post are impressive. The title of this thread is "Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" which you cannot dispute. Republicans were liberal. Democrats were conservative blahBlahblah..The facts are that Republicans have been throughout history been the true allies of African Americans, and as you see from those Lincoln quotes he was nothing like the liberals of today. Todays liberals are as your post proves, want to demonize business and the jobs creators so as to attempt to redistribute wealth and even out outcomes, but that is not what this thread is about.
> 
> This thread is about what the title says and the only thing that dems have done for blacks since the founding of the party was LBJ helping to pass the 64 civil rights act, thats pretty much it. All the rest of his liberal agenda as failed the black community and helped to destroy the black family, of course he got help with that from the race hustlers. Sad really, instead of working to build up the black population in this country they make money off producing victims and these victims are part of the base of the democrat party congradulations. The current state of African Americans in this country can be traced directly back to the democrat party and the policies of *todays* liberals
Click to expand...


Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years


----------



## Brutus

no need to be politically correct. Many Italians were picked up too. They had a great sympathy for their fascist bretheren.

When the soviets needed new spies they looked among our liberals. I'm sure when the Japanese and Germans needs new spies they knew where to look.

Given that our liberals were spying for Stalin its hard to imagine their concern for American ideals as related to the Japanese. Simply right?


----------



## Brutus

Jroc said:


> The current state of African Americans in this country can be traced directly back to the democrat party and the policies of *todays* liberals



yes indeed! Democratic policies have amounted to a near genocide against American Blacks. 

Prof. Walter Williams said, "we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism." 

The black family was actually more intact than the white family at many times in post Civil War America! Its was liberalism that destroyed the black family! Liberals either have no shame or no IQ! I can't decide.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> democrats just can't seem to get over the FACT that they have always lagged far behind the Republican Party in championing civil rights and racial equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact, because this is 2011, not 1963. It was a fact, decades ago. Today, it's not.
Click to expand...



It is a fact. Attempting to create and sustain dependency is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Attempting to codify double standards into law is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Taking whole segments of the US population for granted, pandering to them and characterizing them soley by such criteria as race is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." 

You democrats are still way behind, just as you've always been.


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> A true Republican like me .






Do you really think you are fooling anyone with that? Really?


----------



## Unkotare

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman, no one cares what you believe or think.





I do. You are completely full of crap and he has accurately called you on it.


----------



## Unkotare

Brutus said:


> Liberals either have no shame or no IQ! I can't decide.




You don't have to decide, it's both.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman, no one cares what you believe or think, unless it is a Crusader or an OddOne or a bigrebnc.


Really?  The stats say otherwise:

daveman	
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: KY
Posts: 20,119
Thanks: 3,331
Thanked 5,798 Times in 3,988 Posts
Rep Power: 728

JakeStarkey
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the mainstream
Posts: 20,820
Thanks: 833
Thanked 1,903 Times in 1,627 Posts
Rep Power: 267

Reality once again kicks Fakey's ass.  


JakeStarkey said:


> You guys simply don't count in the party, other than we want your votes.  Watch the primary fights next year as we finally can force some of you Hard Rights out of power.
> 
> Been a long time coming, going to be worth it.


I'm not in your party.  I'm not a Democrat.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> democrats just can't seem to get over the FACT that they have always lagged far behind the Republican Party in championing civil rights and racial equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact, because this is 2011, not 1963. It was a fact, decades ago. Today, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact. Attempting to create and sustain dependency is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Attempting to codify double standards into law is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Taking whole segments of the US population for granted, pandering to them and characterizing them soley by such criteria as race is not "championing civil rights and racial equality."
> 
> You democrats are still way behind, just as you've always been.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by dependency?

Millions of poor Americans, blacks included, have escaped poverty through jobs programs, education, childcare subsidies and medicaid. Republican agendas like keeping minimum wage low and blocking the right to unionize have prevented poor Americans from breaking out of poverty 

What is it again that Republicans have done for blacks?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years


Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.

Democrats haven't done that.


----------



## daveman

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Republican like me .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think you are fooling anyone with that? Really?
Click to expand...

Even the leftists who ride to his rescue don't believe it, and they're pretty damn gullible.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact, because this is 2011, not 1963. It was a fact, decades ago. Today, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact. Attempting to create and sustain dependency is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Attempting to codify double standards into law is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Taking whole segments of the US population for granted, pandering to them and characterizing them soley by such criteria as race is not "championing civil rights and racial equality."
> 
> You democrats are still way behind, just as you've always been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by dependency??
Click to expand...



Put down the pipe and go buy a dictionary, moron.


----------



## daveman

Unkotare said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman, no one cares what you believe or think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. You are completely full of crap and he has accurately called you on it.
Click to expand...

*tips hat*

"You must spread some rep around before giving it to Unkotare etc."


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
Click to expand...


Sure we have. It is Democrats who have provided aid to go to college, Jobs programs, pre school education....not just to blacks, but to any American struggling to escape poverty

To republicans, treating them like free men and women means ignoring them

No wonder so many Americans struggling to escape poverty would never vote Republican


----------



## Unkotare

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
Click to expand...


That is a concept most democrats cannot understand and the rest of whom don't want to consider.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact, because this is 2011, not 1963. It was a fact, decades ago. Today, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact. Attempting to create and sustain dependency is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Attempting to codify double standards into law is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Taking whole segments of the US population for granted, pandering to them and characterizing them soley by such criteria as race is not "championing civil rights and racial equality."
> 
> You democrats are still way behind, just as you've always been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by dependency?
> 
> Millions of poor Americans, blacks included, have escaped poverty through jobs programs, education, childcare subsidies and medicaid. Republican agendas like keeping minimum wage low and blocking the right to unionize have prevented poor Americans from breaking out of poverty
> 
> What is it again that Republicans have done for blacks?
Click to expand...



Look at the overall condition of the  Black population now, as opposed to before all these liberal programs.  Are we results oriented? Or are good intentions enough for people like you? The results speak for themselves. your liberal policies have failed


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact. Attempting to create and sustain dependency is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Attempting to codify double standards into law is not "championing civil rights and racial equality." Taking whole segments of the US population for granted, pandering to them and characterizing them soley by such criteria as race is not "championing civil rights and racial equality."
> 
> You democrats are still way behind, just as you've always been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by dependency?
> 
> Millions of poor Americans, blacks included, have escaped poverty through jobs programs, education, childcare subsidies and medicaid. Republican agendas like keeping minimum wage low and blocking the right to unionize have prevented poor Americans from breaking out of poverty
> 
> What is it again that Republicans have done for blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the overall condition of the  Black population now, as opposed to before all these liberal programs.  Are we results oriented? Or are good intentions enough for people like you? The results speak for themselves. your liberal policies have failed
Click to expand...


What is the conditions of blacks today? Black middle class is growing, more blacks are doctors, lawyers, professionals.  One even became President


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we have. It is Democrats who have provided aid to go to college, Jobs programs, pre school education....not just to blacks, but to any American struggling to escape poverty
> 
> To republicans, treating them like free men and women means ignoring them
> 
> No wonder so many Americans struggling to escape poverty would never vote Republican
Click to expand...

Interesting fantasy.  What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## daveman

Unkotare said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a concept most democrats cannot understand and the rest of whom don't want to consider.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  

People are human beings, not voting blocs.  But then, liberals have trouble with the idea of individuality to begin with.  Look at the rage and hate they direct towards minorities who should believe what the left tells them to believe, but refuse to.

It's ugly.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by dependency?
> 
> Millions of poor Americans, blacks included, have escaped poverty through jobs programs, education, childcare subsidies and medicaid. Republican agendas like keeping minimum wage low and blocking the right to unionize have prevented poor Americans from breaking out of poverty
> 
> What is it again that Republicans have done for blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the overall condition of the  Black population now, as opposed to before all these liberal programs.  Are we results oriented? Or are good intentions enough for people like you? The results speak for themselves. your liberal policies have failed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the conditions of blacks today? Black middle class is growing, more blacks are doctors, lawyers, professionals.  One even became President
Click to expand...


  Umm....70% out of wedlock birthrate, over 50% high school dropout rate, over 50% black teenage unemployment, and 25% overall unemployment. Highest abortion rate amongst any group of people in this country and a declining population shall I go on?


----------



## daveman

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the overall condition of the  Black population now, as opposed to before all these liberal programs.  Are we results oriented? Or are good intentions enough for people like you? The results speak for themselves. your liberal policies have failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the conditions of blacks today? Black middle class is growing, more blacks are doctors, lawyers, professionals.  One even became President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm....70% out of wedlock birthrate, over 50% high school dropout rate, over 50% black teenage unemployment, and 25% overall unemployment. Highest abortion rate amongst any group of people in this country and a declining population shall I go on?
Click to expand...

I can't wait to hear how these are good things for the black community.  Whattya say, rightwinger?


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwauhPzdnlc]Thomas Sowell: The Poverty Empire - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the overall condition of the  Black population now, as opposed to before all these liberal programs.  Are we results oriented? Or are good intentions enough for people like you? The results speak for themselves. your liberal policies have failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the conditions of blacks today? Black middle class is growing, more blacks are doctors, lawyers, professionals.  One even became President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm....70% out of wedlock birthrate, over 50% high school dropout rate, over 50% black teenage unemployment, and 25% overall unemployment. Highest abortion rate amongst any group of people in this country and a declining population shall I go on?
Click to expand...


And the Republicans answer is?

Cut all programs that help the poor and leave them on their own

Too many abortions by blacks?  Cut planned parenthood, cut prenatal care, cut aid to parents with dependent children, cut childcare


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman, no one cares what you believe or think, unless it is a Crusader or an OddOne or a bigrebnc.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The stats say otherwise:
> 
> daveman
> Join Date: Jun 2010
> Location: KY
> Posts: 20,119
> Thanks: 3,331
> Thanked 5,798 Times in 3,988 Posts
> Rep Power: 728
> 
> JakeStarkey
> Join Date: Aug 2009
> Location: in the mainstream
> Posts: 20,820
> Thanks: 833
> Thanked 1,903 Times in 1,627 Posts
> Rep Power: 267
> 
> Reality once again kicks Fakey's ass.
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys simply don't count in the party, other than we want your votes.  Watch the primary fights next year as we finally can force some of you Hard Rights out of power.
> 
> Been a long time coming, going to be worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in your party.  I'm not a Democrat.
Click to expand...


The Hard Right, daveman, sitting around jerking each other off does not count as popularity here, just depravity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
Click to expand...


Prove it.  This is what I mean.  You make your silly Hard Right reactionary comments without any evidence.  They are free men and women, who think for themselves, and they vote against our GOP because of people like you and Unkotare and your silly ass comments.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the conditions of blacks today? Black middle class is growing, more blacks are doctors, lawyers, professionals.  One even became President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm....70% out of wedlock birthrate, over 50% high school dropout rate, over 50% black teenage unemployment, and 25% overall unemployment. Highest abortion rate amongst any group of people in this country and a declining population shall I go on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Republicans answer is?
> 
> Cut all programs that help the poor and leave them on their own
> 
> Too many abortions by blacks?  Cut planned parenthood, cut prenatal care, cut aid to parents with dependent children, cut childcare
Click to expand...

So you support the left's eugenics program.

You have a lot in common with Tank.  At least he's open with his hatred.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman, no one cares what you believe or think, unless it is a Crusader or an OddOne or a bigrebnc.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The stats say otherwise:
> 
> daveman
> Join Date: Jun 2010
> Location: KY
> Posts: 20,119
> Thanks: 3,331
> Thanked 5,798 Times in 3,988 Posts
> Rep Power: 728
> 
> JakeStarkey
> Join Date: Aug 2009
> Location: in the mainstream
> Posts: 20,820
> Thanks: 833
> Thanked 1,903 Times in 1,627 Posts
> Rep Power: 267
> 
> Reality once again kicks Fakey's ass.
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys simply don't count in the party, other than we want your votes.  Watch the primary fights next year as we finally can force some of you Hard Rights out of power.
> 
> Been a long time coming, going to be worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in your party.  I'm not a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Hard Right, daveman, sitting around jerking each other off does not count as popularity here, just depravity.
Click to expand...

You just keep playing pretend, boy.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy....name something Republicans have done to help blacks in the last 40 years
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.  This is what I mean.  You make your silly Hard Right reactionary comments without any evidence.  They are free men and women, who think for themselves, and they vote against our GOP because of people like you and Unkotare and your silly ass comments.
Click to expand...

Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?



Jake, in your blind defense of the Democratic Party, you're gone around the bend.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?



In itself, no, but if so, then you have to accept that those free men and women who can think for themselves do not, in their free thinking, see the Republican Party as the defenders of their interests.

There was a time when they did. In 1932, black activists for Roosevelt had to work against the entrenched GOP preference among black voters going all the way back to the Civil War and Reconstruction. There was a flier put out by some black political group or other, I forget which, that started, "Abraham Lincoln is not a candidate in this year's election."

The thing is, when 90% or more of black voters consistently vote Democratic, it becomes a little strained for Republicans to claim that they are the ones who really represent black interests. The only argument presented here so far involves "dependence on government," which completely ignores the difficulties faced by poor people generally and poor people of color in particular in finding work that pays a living wage, particularly in this economy. Over the last thirty years, the bar to a middle-class income has been raised higher and higher so that fewer and fewer people achieve it. It's reached a point now when big companies that made fortunes marketing products to middle-class people now ignore that demographic and concentrate on the poor and the rich -- because that's increasingly what's left. While both parties are at fault to a degree, the primary blame lies with the Republicans. Black voters understand this. It's not rocket science.

The reason that black people vote Democratic is simple, and it's the same reason they used to vote Republican a long time ago: precisely BECAUSE they're free men and women who think for themselves, and are not persuaded by bogus arguments that making things harder for them is somehow in their favor.


----------



## Unkotare

Ok, 'dragon' is clearly a stupid, irrational, partisan hack trying in vain to deny history and alter reality to fit his simplistic, partisan 'argument.' You have been proven wrong again and again at evey turn and you just persist with your block-headed "it has to be 'cause I say so!" nonsense. You are officially not worth the trouble. Try again if you ever manage to get that brain cell to divide a few times.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> Ok, 'dragon' is clearly a stupid, irrational, partisan hack trying in vain to deny history and alter reality to fit his simplistic, partisan 'argument.' You have been proven wrong again and again at evey turn and you just persist with your block-headed "it has to be 'cause I say so!" nonsense. You are officially not worth the trouble. Try again if you ever manage to get that brain cell to divide a few times.



I don't see you refuting anything he said.  Why don't you give it a try?


----------



## Dragon

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, 'dragon' is clearly a stupid, irrational, partisan hack trying in vain to deny history and alter reality to fit his simplistic, partisan 'argument.' You have been proven wrong again and again at evey turn and you just persist with your block-headed "it has to be 'cause I say so!" nonsense. You are officially not worth the trouble. Try again if you ever manage to get that brain cell to divide a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you refuting anything he said.  Why don't you give it a try?
Click to expand...


I've asked him, and others who respond to my posts with ad-homs suggestive of mouth foaming, repeatedly to do that, so far without much success. I think what's happening here is that they don't really know how to respond to what I'm saying, and so crap like the above is really all they can do without agreeing with me.

It's also interesting that this is about the fourth or fifth time now that Unkotare has said "you are officially not worth the trouble" or words to that effect, yet he keeps on troubling for some reason . . .

What I said in the last post is that 1) blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic in U.S. national elections (true or false?); 2) over the last 30 years, it's become harder and harder to achieve a middle-class income, so that fewer and fewer accomplish it (true or false?); black voters have minds of their own and can decide whom to vote for (true or false?).

To say that self-evident statements like these have been "proven false over and over" is, frankly, a sign of desperation, as in fact is the entire resort to ad hominem on the part of people like Unkotare. It shows that they are unable to rebut what I'm saying with logic or evidence. It makes them mad, and that shows, too.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treat them as free men and women who can think for themselves.
> 
> Democrats haven't done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  This is what I mean.  You make your silly Hard Right reactionary comments without any evidence.  They are free men and women, who think for themselves, and they vote against our GOP because of people like you and Unkotare and your silly ass comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, in your blind defense of the Democratic Party, you're gone around the bend.
Click to expand...


Trying to fix a problem with our Republican Party is not a "blind defense of the Democratic Party."  The silly ass comment was about your and Unkotare's comments.

You need to read, kid.

You silly reactionary wack so bad want to be a Republican.  No.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dragon said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, 'dragon' is clearly a stupid, irrational, partisan hack trying in vain to deny history and alter reality to fit his simplistic, partisan 'argument.' You have been proven wrong again and again at evey turn and you just persist with your block-headed "it has to be 'cause I say so!" nonsense. You are officially not worth the trouble. Try again if you ever manage to get that brain cell to divide a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you refuting anything he said.  Why don't you give it a try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked him, and others who respond to my posts with ad-homs suggestive of mouth foaming, repeatedly to do that, so far without much success. I think what's happening here is that they don't really know how to respond to what I'm saying, and so crap like the above is really all they can do without agreeing with me.
> 
> It's also interesting that this is about the fourth or fifth time now that Unkotare has said "you are officially not worth the trouble" or words to that effect, yet he keeps on troubling for some reason . . .
> 
> What I said in the last post is that 1) blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic in U.S. national elections (true or false?); 2) over the last 30 years, it's become harder and harder to achieve a middle-class income, so that fewer and fewer accomplish it (true or false?); black voters have minds of their own and can decide whom to vote for (true or false?).
> 
> To say that self-evident statements like these have been "proven false over and over" is, frankly, a sign of desperation, as in fact is the entire resort to ad hominem on the part of people like Unkotare. It shows that they are unable to rebut what I'm saying with logic or evidence. It makes them mad, and that shows, too.
Click to expand...


They are very desperate, the Far Hard Right wacks like Unkotare, Jroc, JRK, daveman and the rest.  They can't argue the points on this, so they simply keep frothing.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In itself, no, but if so, then you have to accept that those free men and women who can think for themselves do not, in their free thinking, see the Republican Party as the defenders of their interests.
> 
> There was a time when they did. In 1932, black activists for Roosevelt had to work against the entrenched GOP preference among black voters going all the way back to the Civil War and Reconstruction. There was a flier put out by some black political group or other, I forget which, that started, "Abraham Lincoln is not a candidate in this year's election."
> 
> The thing is, when 90% or more of black voters consistently vote Democratic, it becomes a little strained for Republicans to claim that they are the ones who really represent black interests. The only argument presented here so far involves "dependence on government," which completely ignores the difficulties faced by poor people generally and poor people of color in particular in finding work that pays a living wage, particularly in this economy. Over the last thirty years, the bar to a middle-class income has been raised higher and higher so that fewer and fewer people achieve it. It's reached a point now when big companies that made fortunes marketing products to middle-class people now ignore that demographic and concentrate on the poor and the rich -- because that's increasingly what's left. While both parties are at fault to a degree, the primary blame lies with the Republicans. Black voters understand this. It's not rocket science.
> 
> The reason that black people vote Democratic is simple, and it's the same reason they used to vote Republican a long time ago: precisely BECAUSE they're free men and women who think for themselves, and are not persuaded by bogus arguments that making things harder for them is somehow in their favor.
Click to expand...

A large part of the problem is the lefts constantly screeching that the right is racist -- when there's no evidence of it.

Of course, the left just wants the black vote, so they don't really care how they get it.  Same as it ever was.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.  This is what I mean.  You make your silly Hard Right reactionary comments without any evidence.  They are free men and women, who think for themselves, and they vote against our GOP because of people like you and Unkotare and your silly ass comments.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, in your blind defense of the Democratic Party, you're gone around the bend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trying to fix a problem with our Republican Party is not a "blind defense of the Democratic Party."  The silly ass comment was about your and Unkotare's comments.
> 
> You need to read, kid.
> 
> You silly reactionary wack so bad want to be a Republican.  No.
Click to expand...

So, you stepped on your crank with golf spikes, and it's MY fault.  

Why can't you ever take responsibility for yourself, boy?  

Oh, yeah -- because you're a leftist.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see you refuting anything he said.  Why don't you give it a try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked him, and others who respond to my posts with ad-homs suggestive of mouth foaming, repeatedly to do that, so far without much success. I think what's happening here is that they don't really know how to respond to what I'm saying, and so crap like the above is really all they can do without agreeing with me.
> 
> It's also interesting that this is about the fourth or fifth time now that Unkotare has said "you are officially not worth the trouble" or words to that effect, yet he keeps on troubling for some reason . . .
> 
> What I said in the last post is that 1) blacks tend to vote heavily Democratic in U.S. national elections (true or false?); 2) over the last 30 years, it's become harder and harder to achieve a middle-class income, so that fewer and fewer accomplish it (true or false?); black voters have minds of their own and can decide whom to vote for (true or false?).
> 
> To say that self-evident statements like these have been "proven false over and over" is, frankly, a sign of desperation, as in fact is the entire resort to ad hominem on the part of people like Unkotare. It shows that they are unable to rebut what I'm saying with logic or evidence. It makes them mad, and that shows, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are very desperate, the Far Hard Right wacks like Unkotare, Jroc, JRK, daveman and the rest.  They can't argue the points on this, so they simply keep frothing.
Click to expand...

And Jake agrees with and comes to the defense of another USMB leftist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

People who disagree with you are first and always Americans, some are leftist, some are moderate, some are responsible Republicans, like me.  

You are a Far Hard Right desperate wack who can't offer any sensible defense for his nonsense.

Your choices have consequences, and we Americans will hold you to your choices.  Nuff said.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> People who disagree with you are first and always Americans, some are leftist, some are moderate, some are responsible Republicans, like me.
> 
> You are a Far Hard Right desperate wack who can't offer any sensible defense for his nonsense.
> 
> Your choices have consequences, and we Americans will hold you to your choices.  Nuff said.


A "responsible Republican" complaining that Obama isn't far enough left:


JakeStarkey said:


> I got on Obama about not pushing through a single payer health care, got on him about not bringing the Iraq troops home more quickly, plus a few other things.



Show of hands -- who believes Fakey's horseshit?

I count none.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are a Far Hard Right wack who is not a conservative, daveman.  Those in the mainstream are not folks like you.  Obama has not shown leadership, he certainly didn't when he could have rammed health care through.  Romney did it the right way at the state level.  The GOP has offered nothing worthwhile on the issue.  If we Republicans generally won't do it, then we need to support those like Romney who have shown the way.  And that does not happen, the next Dems take over they will give us socialized national health care a German would be thrilled to get.


----------



## flacaltenn

I'm coming in about 33 pages late here. I'm noticing how much fun y'all are having.. And all the progress..

Seems to me the largest remaining SYSTEMIC problems that the black community in America faces are:

1) The War on Drugs which has overfilled prisons and afforded kids financial incentives for becoming criminals. 

2) The lack of Public School choice for Black parents that DO give a damn what hellhole their kids are forced to sit in.

3) The inability of political leadership to encourage 21st Century manufacturing to be built in this country and provide jobs. 

4) A myriad of serious roadblocks to small Black Biz entreprenuers like licensing requirements for a hair braiding shop or govt corruption in granting cab licenses or leveling Black communities for redevelopment targeted to enrich large white interests. 

I could go on --- you get the picture.. So Jake and my black buds here should realize that NEITHER party is gonna move these things forward. HOWEVER -- the Libertarian Party has ALL of those as their top priorities.. 

So where's the love?


----------



## rightwinger

flacaltenn said:


> I'm coming in about 33 pages late here. I'm noticing how much fun y'all are having.. And all the progress..
> 
> Seems to me the largest remaining SYSTEMIC problems that the black community in America faces are:
> 
> 1) The War on Drugs which has overfilled prisons and afforded kids financial incentives for becoming criminals.
> 
> 2) The lack of Public School choice for Black parents that DO give a damn what hellhole their kids are forced to sit in.
> 
> 3) The inability of political leadership to encourage 21st Century manufacturing to be built in this country and provide jobs.
> 
> 4) A myriad of serious roadblocks to small Black Biz entreprenuers like licensing requirements for a hair braiding shop or govt corruption in granting cab licenses or leveling Black communities for redevelopment targeted to enrich large white interests.
> 
> I could go on --- you get the picture.. So Jake and my black buds here should realize that NEITHER party is gonna move these things forward. HOWEVER -- the Libertarian Party has ALL of those as their top priorities..
> 
> So where's the love?



The biggest problem facing the black community is the total breakdown of the black family. Neither party can fix that......the black community must fix itself


----------



## flacaltenn

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm coming in about 33 pages late here. I'm noticing how much fun y'all are having.. And all the progress..
> 
> Seems to me the largest remaining SYSTEMIC problems that the black community in America faces are:
> 
> 1) The War on Drugs which has overfilled prisons and afforded kids financial incentives for becoming criminals.
> 
> 2) The lack of Public School choice for Black parents that DO give a damn what hellhole their kids are forced to sit in.
> 
> 3) The inability of political leadership to encourage 21st Century manufacturing to be built in this country and provide jobs.
> 
> 4) A myriad of serious roadblocks to small Black Biz entreprenuers like licensing requirements for a hair braiding shop or govt corruption in granting cab licenses or leveling Black communities for redevelopment targeted to enrich large white interests.
> 
> I could go on --- you get the picture.. So Jake and my black buds here should realize that NEITHER party is gonna move these things forward. HOWEVER -- the Libertarian Party has ALL of those as their top priorities..
> 
> So where's the love?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem facing the black community is the total breakdown of the black family. Neither party can fix that......the black community must fix itself
Click to expand...


Obviously not ALL of them need fixing. In fact the Black Moms I saw lined up for Public School lotteries didn't seem dysfunctional at all.

So Yeah -- there's an aspect of "internal affairs" there. It would help if we removed the attractions of pushing drugs by advertising career alternatives and opportunity to their kids rather despair and "lowered expectations". *RAISE the bar *-- get more confident capable adolescents..


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> A large part of the problem is the lefts constantly screeching that the right is racist -- when there's no evidence of it.
> 
> Of course, the left just wants the black vote, so they don't really care how they get it.  Same as it ever was.



What you seem to be saying here is that, contrary to what you said earlier, black voters are NOT human beings with self will able to think for themselves. You say that the left lies that the right is racist -- but obviously if that's so, the black voters buy it. You say that the left (by which in this case I suppose you mean the Democrats, inaccurate as that is) only want the black vote and don't care how they get it -- yet black voters seem to be fooled by this again and again.

So what is it? Are black voters full-fledged adult human beings able to think for themselves (in which case you have to accept that they are doing so by consistently voting Democratic), or are they little children easily fooled and led around by unscrupulous hucksters -- for decades now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman has trouble seeing the inconsistency of statements in the past.  However, perhaps he can change.  I hope so.  The GOP has to adapt to the issue.  The libertarians are right that the drug laws are a great part of the problem, a perfect example of conservative progressivism ~ change of society through political means.  Jail their asses seem to be the point.


----------



## Brutus

rightwinger said:


> It is Democrats who have provided aid to go to college, Jobs programs, pre school education....not just to blacks, but to any American struggling to escape poverty



the Democrat's welfare programs have amounted to a near genocide against blacks. Did you think it was Girl Scout welfare programs that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail,  and made the children illegitimate. 

Its very easy to look at the progress blacks were making before LBJ's great welfare programs and after.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying blacks are free men and women who can think for themselves is a silly-ass comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In itself, no, but if so, then you have to accept that those free men and women who can think for themselves do not, in their free thinking, see the Republican Party as the defenders of their interests.
> 
> There was a time when they did. In 1932, black activists for Roosevelt had to work against the entrenched GOP preference among black voters going all the way back to the Civil War and Reconstruction. There was a flier put out by some black political group or other, I forget which, that started, "Abraham Lincoln is not a candidate in this year's election."
> 
> The thing is, when 90% or more of black voters consistently vote Democratic, it becomes a little strained for Republicans to claim that they are the ones who really represent black interests. The only argument presented here so far involves "dependence on government," which completely ignores the difficulties faced by poor people generally and poor people of color in particular in finding work that pays a living wage, particularly in this economy. Over the last thirty years, the bar to a middle-class income has been raised higher and higher so that fewer and fewer people achieve it. It's reached a point now when big companies that made fortunes marketing products to middle-class people now ignore that demographic and concentrate on the poor and the rich -- because that's increasingly what's left. While both parties are at fault to a degree, the primary blame lies with the Republicans. Black voters understand this. It's not rocket science.
> 
> The reason that black people vote Democratic is simple, and it's the same reason they used to vote Republican a long time ago: precisely BECAUSE they're free men and women who think for themselves, and are not persuaded by bogus arguments that making things harder for them is somehow in their favor.
Click to expand...


The more you post the more you sound like all the other liberal drones on the board the facts are that all your liberal big government programs have done nothing to help the poor and Black population what helps them is less government restrictions on our capitalists system which will release our economy and help to create jobs for them. You libs and your class warfare are a joke and thats pretty much all you got. All this big powerful government is what has created the problems we have now smaller government means all these companies wouldn't have too cozy up to the politicians for special favors, big government has created this "Crony Capitalist" system we have now and Obama just wants to add to it


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> they're free men and women who think for themselves,



if they think why are they voting liberal  when the liberal agenda has amounted to a near genocide against them? Did you notice that the black family was intact before the liberal welfare Great Society programs.  

Now you know what Prof. Walter Williams meant when he said, " we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism."


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXexa00BAJg&feature=related]Stossel Walter Williams Unintended Consequences - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> You are a Far Hard Right wack who is not a conservative, daveman.  Those in the mainstream are not folks like you.  Obama has not shown leadership, he certainly didn't when he could have rammed health care through.  Romney did it the right way at the state level.  The GOP has offered nothing worthwhile on the issue.  If we Republicans generally won't do it, then we need to support those like Romney who have shown the way.  And that does not happen, the next Dems take over they will give us socialized national health care a German would be thrilled to get.


*yawn*  Aren't you late for your Obama Youth meeting?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large part of the problem is the lefts constantly screeching that the right is racist -- when there's no evidence of it.
> 
> Of course, the left just wants the black vote, so they don't really care how they get it.  Same as it ever was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you seem to be saying here is that, contrary to what you said earlier, black voters are NOT human beings with self will able to think for themselves. You say that the left lies that the right is racist -- but obviously if that's so, the black voters buy it. You say that the left (by which in this case I suppose you mean the Democrats, inaccurate as that is) only want the black vote and don't care how they get it -- yet black voters seem to be fooled by this again and again.
> 
> So what is it? Are black voters full-fledged adult human beings able to think for themselves (in which case you have to accept that they are doing so by consistently voting Democratic), or are they little children easily fooled and led around by unscrupulous hucksters -- for decades now?
Click to expand...

They're choosing for themselves based on inaccurate information.  That inaccurate information is screeched loudly and often.  It's all they can hear.

Maybe if you guys stopped lying, they could hear something else.  

But that's not going to happen, is it?  You need the black vote, and you don't much care how you get it.



> The Following User Says Thank You to Dragon For This Useful Post:
> JakeStarkey (Today)


And once again, Fakey's mindlessly cheerleading for leftists.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman has trouble seeing the inconsistency of statements in the past.  However, perhaps he can change.  I hope so.  The GOP has to adapt to the issue.  The libertarians are right that the drug laws are a great part of the problem, a perfect example of conservative progressivism ~ change of society through political means.  Jail their asses seem to be the point.


Fakey has trouble with reality.


----------



## rightwinger

Brutus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Democrats who have provided aid to go to college, Jobs programs, pre school education....not just to blacks, but to any American struggling to escape poverty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Democrat's welfare programs have amounted to a near genocide against blacks. Did you think it was Girl Scout welfare programs that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail,  and made the children illegitimate.
> 
> Its very easy to look at the progress blacks were making before LBJ's great welfare programs and after.
Click to expand...


Welfare makes black men go to jail?  Try ridiculous conservative war on drugs laws that fill our prisons with non violent offenders

Blacks were not making progress before LBJs great society. Civil Rights laws had to be forced down peoples throats. And when the response to civil rights laws was to block the hiring of blacks, affirmative action had to be forced down peoples throats


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Democrats who have provided aid to go to college, Jobs programs, pre school education....not just to blacks, but to any American struggling to escape poverty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Democrat's welfare programs have amounted to a near genocide against blacks. Did you think it was Girl Scout welfare programs that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail,  and made the children illegitimate.
> 
> Its very easy to look at the progress blacks were making before LBJ's great welfare programs and after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welfare makes black men go to jail?  Try ridiculous conservative war on drugs laws that fill our prisons with non violent offenders
> 
> Blacks were not making progress before LBJs great society. Civil Rights laws had to be forced down peoples throats. And when the response to civil rights laws was to block the hiring of blacks, affirmative action had to be forced down peoples throats
Click to expand...



Do you read? He said welfare not civil rights. The Great Society and civil rights are two totally different things. Republicans supported and pushed for the civil rights act over the objections and filibusters of a large portion of democrats, Republicans did not support the great society which is a failure as we have spent trillions on it, and things have gotten much worst for the majority of poor African Americans.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> The more you post the more you sound like all the other liberal drones on the board the facts are that all your liberal big government programs have done nothing to help the poor and Black population what helps them is less government restrictions on our capitalists system which will release our economy and help to create jobs for them. You libs and your class warfare are a joke and thats pretty much all you got. All this big powerful government is what has created the problems we have now smaller government means all these companies wouldn't have too cozy up to the politicians for special favors, big government has created this "Crony Capitalist" system we have now and Obama just wants to add to it



Do you realize that in that fairly long paragraph, you said absolutely nothing of substance?

Not once have you responded to any argument of mine with either reason or evidence to dispute it. All you offer up in rebuttal is invective and rhetoric -- which is to say, nothing.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Do you read? He said welfare not civil rights. The Great Society and civil rights are two totally different things.



No, they are different things but not TOTALLY different things. Both helped African Americans overcome the troubles they faced as a result of the legacy of slavery and segregation. African-Americans are disproportionately poor and hence disproportionately helped by government action to level incomes, not just welfare but also, and more importantly, support for unions and other efforts to raise wages.

There's no point in howling about this. As I said, black voters are self-willed people capable of thinking for themselves. THEY think that what the Democrats have done since the 1960s is of benefit to them, or more so than what the Republicans have done since then. You are not going to be able to reverse that reality just by posting some right-wing screed on an internet board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silly fool.  Daveman, you are simply a silly fool.  The GOP needs the black vote, and needs to reach out to blacks and their needs.  To say that is not so shows your simple foolishness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Democrat's welfare programs have amounted to a near genocide against blacks. Did you think it was Girl Scout welfare programs that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail,  and made the children illegitimate.
> 
> Its very easy to look at the progress blacks were making before LBJ's great welfare programs and after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare makes black men go to jail?  Try ridiculous conservative war on drugs laws that fill our prisons with non violent offenders
> 
> Blacks were not making progress before LBJs great society. Civil Rights laws had to be forced down peoples throats. And when the response to civil rights laws was to block the hiring of blacks, affirmative action had to be forced down peoples throats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> SNIP.
Click to expand...


Jroc does not realize the issue was not political as it was geographical in the Civil Rights Campaigns.  Dems and Pubs in the North and West overwhelmingly voted for civil rights.  Dems and Pubs in the South overwhelmingly voted against civil rights.

Jroc does not hesitate to lie, and like daveman, needs to be called out everytime he doe it.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you read? He said welfare not civil rights. The Great Society and civil rights are two totally different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are different things but not TOTALLY different things. Both helped African Americans overcome the troubles they faced as a result of the legacy of slavery and segregation. African-Americans are disproportionately poor and hence disproportionately helped by government action to level incomes, not just welfare but also, and more importantly, support for unions and other efforts to raise wages.
> 
> There's no point in howling about this. As I said, black voters are self-willed people capable of thinking for themselves. THEY think that what the Democrats have done since the 1960s is of benefit to them, or more so than what the Republicans have done since then. You are not going to be able to reverse that reality just by posting some right-wing screed on an internet board.
Click to expand...



You are wrong as we can see the state of the black community as it is today. Blacks that have succeeded have done so because they work to succeed. The fact the Blacks vote for Dems doesn't mean it is good for them, as blindly voting for one party isn't good in general. And when they call black conservatives "sell outs" "uncle toms that says a lot.

 As far as your liberal bull they are mainly talking the points from liberal elitist that seek to blur the lines with demagoguery. This is what they do in liberal universities they don't teach facts what they teach has to fit into there liberal ideology most of those people have no idea what they are talking about, I do because I have lived it. I know what goes on down in inner city Detroit. You? Jake? I highly doubt it


----------



## Dragon

Here's some nice, solid evidence of how much the Republican Party has changed since the 1950s. I'm going to present links to maps of electoral college votes from 1916 on.

File:ElectoralCollege1916.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a little misleading because it was a Wilson landslide, but note that Wilson (Democratic candidate in case anyone's forgotten) won the entire South, but lost most of the upper Midwest and Northeast states, as well as one state on the West Coast (Oregon).

File:ElectoralCollege1920.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1920, the Democratic candidate won almost the entire South (except for Tennessee) and lost everywhere else. The South voted Democratic, and the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast voted Republican.

File:ElectoralCollege1924.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1924 was another big GOP win, but note once more: the Democratic candidate took the whole South. Republicans were weak there, and strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest and West Coast -- exactly the opposite of what we see today.

File:ElectoralCollege1928.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1928 was a Hoover landslide, so the outcome wasn't as pure, but again note that such strength as the Democratic candidate had was in the South.

File:ElectoralCollege1932.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1932 was an even bigger landslide for Roosevelt, but note that what states Hoover did win were in the Northeast.

The same was true in 1936, when FDR won all but two states: Maine and Vermont.

File:ElectoralCollege1940.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1940, Wilkie's strength, such as it was, was in the Northeast and upper Midwest.

File:ElectoralCollege1944.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same pattern can be observed in 1944: Republicans strong in the Northeast and upper Midwest, Democrats in the South.

File:ElectoralCollege1948.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1948 we see the first signs of the Democrats losing their grip on the South. Truman mostly won the South and Dewey won no Southern states, but several states were peeled off by Strom Thurmond's third-party run. My guess is this had to do with Truman integrating the armed services.

File:ElectoralCollege1952.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1956.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eisenhower won big both those elections, but again, such strength as the Democrat had was in the South.

File:ElectoralCollege1960.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1960 departed from the pattern slightly probably because the Democrats ran a charismatic candidate from the Northeast, and again a third-party run cost Kennedy a few Southern electoral votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1964.svg

In 1964, we see again an early sign of the change. It was of course a Johnson blowout, but note that of the states taken by Goldwater all but his home state was in the South -- clearly (to me anyway) the South was punishing Johnson for the Civil Rights Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1968.svg

1968 was the year of Nixon's "Southern Strategy," with the GOP for the first time deliberately trying to capitalize on Southern white voters' anger with the Democrats. It didn't altogether work -- Wallace's third party success in the South showed that while Southerners were pissed off at the Dems, they weren't ready yet to vote for the Party of Lincoln. But they would get over it.

Important point: Note that as the Republicans are gaining the South, they are also losing the Northeast and upper Midwest, their original strongholds.

1972 was such a massive tidal wave it can't tell us anything.

File:ElectoralCollege1976.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1976 was, I believe, the last gasp of the old voting pattern, and yet not quite: Carter won strongly in the Northeast and upper Midwest, as well as in the South.

1980 and 1984 were both such landslides that the pattern isn't visible.

File:ElectoralCollege1988.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1988, on the other hand, clearly shows the emerging new pattern. Note where Dukakis' strength lay: in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the West Coast. He lost the entire South.

File:ElectoralCollege1992.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1996.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll stop here, because by the Clinton years the new pattern was clear. The Republicans, formerly strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, have ceded all those regions to the Democrats. The South, formerly a Democratic stronghold, has been taken over by the GOP.

When we have powerful a change in voting patterns, one of two things has happened. Either the character of regional politics has dramatically shifted, or else the parties have changed.

I think the latter is the more likely explanation, don't you?


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Silly fool.  Daveman, you are simply a silly fool.  The GOP needs the black vote, and needs to reach out to blacks and their needs.  To say that is not so shows your simple foolishness.


You want the GOP to try to buy the black vote the way Dems are doing?

How about treating them with respect and dignity?  The Dems sure aren't doing that.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> You want the GOP to try to buy the black vote the way Dems are doing?
> 
> How about treating them with respect and dignity?  The Dems sure aren't doing that.



And that Republican strategy to win the black vote is working out -- how well?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want the GOP to try to buy the black vote the way Dems are doing?
> 
> How about treating them with respect and dignity?  The Dems sure aren't doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that Republican strategy to win the black vote is working out -- how well?
Click to expand...

Thank you for at least acknowledging Dems buy the black vote and do not treat blacks with respect and dignity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.


Did you get a tingle down your leg when Dear Leader was introduced as "His Excellency" at the UN?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Thank you for at least acknowledging Dems buy the black vote and do not treat blacks with respect and dignity.



I did no such thing; at most, I acknowledged that that's what YOU believe. Are you going to answer the question?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for at least acknowledging Dems buy the black vote and do not treat blacks with respect and dignity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did no such thing; at most, I acknowledged that that's what YOU believe. Are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Of course you did.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Of course you did.



No. Are you going to answer the question?


----------



## flacaltenn

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.



Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest. 

The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field.



They do care about _their_ economic freedoms. They just don't buy the lie that increasing Wall Street's economic freedom will increase theirs.


----------



## konradv

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote *anymore than GOP buys the business vote*.



That's right. because the truth is the exact opposite, business buys the GOP vote!


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do care about _their_ economic freedoms. They just don't buy the lie that increasing Wall Street's economic freedom will increase theirs.
Click to expand...


So what do successful Blacks invest in? Greek Bonds? Turnip Greens?

There are no Home Depots in black neighborhoods? Never eat at McDonald's? Don't have wireless service? What economy in America isn't represented on Wall Street?


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> So what do successful Blacks invest in? Greek Bonds?



The point, which seems to have whooshed right over your head, is that a lot of blacks AREN'T successful in the sense and to the extent where what they invest in is a primary concern, as opposed to, say, finding a job, keeping a roof over their heads, having enough to eat, getting clothes for their children . . . 

The economic freedom of the rich isn't the economic freedom of the non-rich. The two are antithetical, in fact. And so it isn't THEIR economic freedom that most black voters don't care about.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do successful Blacks invest in? Greek Bonds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point, which seems to have whooshed right over your head, is that a lot of blacks AREN'T successful in the sense and to the extent where what they invest in is a primary concern, as opposed to, say, finding a job, keeping a roof over their heads, having enough to eat, getting clothes for their children . . .
> 
> The economic freedom of the rich isn't the economic freedom of the non-rich. The two are antithetical, in fact. And so it isn't THEIR economic freedom that most black voters don't care about.
Click to expand...


Good God Man -- that's dismal.. Prozac ain't enough to fix that. Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically? I wasn't just jabbering about stocks and bonds when I was saying "investment". 

All that has to be done is to keep them in school, get them a library card and make sure they use it 4 hours a week. I spent time with a Jamaican engineer at a party recently. He told me that almost 25% of their kids end up in professional jobs either in Europe or America. Do you think the wealth disparity in Jamaica has them conditioned to doom? 
We can't even get 50% of black kids thru HIGH SCHOOL in many urban areas.. 

SURE -- the economy sucks right now, there are many less low-skilled jobs in America, and the pressures are worse than they have been. That's not a conspiracy against race. It's the 21st century transition to the new definition of work. The disparity gets worse for Black Americans if they don't "get on board" for the future.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?



That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, *and will not have the opportunity to be*.
> 
> Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:
> 
> 1) Anyone can become financially successful.
> 2) Everyone can become financially successful.
> 
> The reality is that there are only *so many "successful*" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.
> 
> If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.
> 
> Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.
Click to expand...


And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.
> 
> Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:
> 
> 1) Anyone can become financially successful.
> 2) Everyone can become financially successful.
> 
> The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.
> 
> If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.
> 
> Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.
Click to expand...


Well I get SOME of that. But you're not quite right about "the current rules".. So in no particular order. 



> Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.



No sir.. Things like the internet makes EVERYONE more productive AND more competitive. It leveled the playing field between small companies and large companies which could afford their own technical libraries and market research for instance. It allows folks to compete with brick/mortar stores from their home basements in pajamas. TOOLS !! Since man walked upright -- it's been about TOOLS and learning how to use them. Hard to be a mechinist today without knowing how to use computers. Gonna be harder in the future if you can't draw and edit parts from computer models. The bar for learning is going up. 

As far as competition goes -- yup -- you're right. It's there. But it DOESN"T really depend on your academic credentials. It depends MORE (once you snag a position) on how committed you are to LEARNING every aspect of the job. That's the problem I have with unions. They have a shitty view of a 21st century job. But that's another story. Looking at my colleagues, there's virtually NO connection between their academic past and their career. So wasting bucks on MIT when Kansas State was virtually free -- aint' really that much of career predictor. ((Yeah Yeah, I know the stats for career salary from MIT -- but they cheated by only accepting the top 0.1%. Kinda like comparing inner city schools to the 'burbs". Means NOTHING in term of potential))



> The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.



If I made the statement that black opportunity was limited because "those who are good at them are in the minority" -- I'd be called a racist. Give me a Jerry Brown style Military Style High School and a paddle and I'd take Oakland kids at random and get 95% of them a good college offer. Maybe if THAT'S what you mean by "changing the rules" -- then I wholeheartedly agree.

Somewhere about 1998, Rev Jackson was preparing one of his famous cash "shakedown tours" in Silicon Valley. I wrote an Op Ed in the San Jose paper suggesting that the Rev bring me 4 busloads of degreed black engineers and scientists. I'd quit my day job and have them ALL placed by the end of the month. My boss didn't like my editorial, but the CEO caught me after a meeting and told me he'd PAY me to do that. I could have retired on the 10% placement fees. 

And this folly that "slots are limited" is brought to you by the same folks who look at wealth in society as a pie. That someone has to take and someone has to give. Doesn't work that way.. Our universities, particularly grad schools are STUFFED with "other world" kids. Not American kids. Even in this awful economy -- there are 2 jobs in science/engineering for every new grad applicant. A society that produces more innovators, developers, entrenprenuers will see it's economy EXPAND. A country that produces lawyers, doctors, and other "service" jobs will stagnant. We can't all service each other into prosperity. But we can GROW slots at ALL levels if we put innovators and risk takers on the field. *THIS is what Conservatives are badgering you about. It's a CHOICE about how fast we can expand. * Not a straightjacket brought to you by the anti-biz, anti-growth, anti-consumer party.. 

*Your CURRENT party sabotages the chances of black youth succeeding by LOWERING the expectations. Maybe that SEEMS accomodating and comforting but it's not a good thing. And maybe when you don't see that same accomodation from Conservatives/Libertarians you see that as hostility. Take my word -- it's not.. *

I can drive 15 minutes out of Hillbilly Hollywood here in Nashville and see what LOOKS like awful poverty. Literally no diff from 1900 sharecropping cotton on a couple acres with a mule. As long as cotton sells -- I guess that's not a problem for their next generation. But there IS a choice for that next generation. And for the WHOLE country as well. 

*We've GOT to kick out the folks who think that economic growth is BAD and UNSUSTAINABLE.* Where Wall Street and "the rich" are scapegoats for everything wrong with this country.  That America should be ashamed of using resources, and creating goods for market. THAT's where the political choice comes in. And unless you WANT to live in a country where all we have is limited pie -- you need to at least listen to folks who talk about economic progress, business, and economic freedom/choices. 

I may be sorry for the pep talk cheerleading. But not sorry about being a greedy capitalist optimist..


----------



## Jroc

[





> B]Thomas Sowell [/B]
> 
> 
> *Blacks and Republicans
> The GOP needs to make its case to win blacks&#8217; votes.*
> 
> 
> San Francisco&#8217;s irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city&#8217;s streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray.
> 
> McCray&#8217;s greeting to him was &#8220;You&#8217;re ten.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;What are you talking about?&#8221; Brown asked.
> 
> McCray replied, &#8220;I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you&#8217;re only the tenth black person I&#8217;ve seen.&#8221;
> 
> That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade.
> 
> A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, &#8220;You&#8217;re the first black man I have seen around here in months!&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;It will be months before you see another one,&#8221; I replied, and we both laughed.
> 
> Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco &#8212; and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula &#8212; by high housing prices.
> 
> At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country. But the building restrictions &#8212; and outright bans &#8212; resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose, and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.
> 
> The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.
> 
> It so happens that these are counties where voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.
> 
> Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable.
> 
> With all the Republican politicians&#8217; laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such Democratic policies as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.
> 
> If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.



Blacks and Republicans - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online


----------



## flacaltenn

San Fran peninsula has some of the most segregated distinct "ghettos" left in this entire country. 

East Palo Alto for instance is separated from prestigous downtown Palo Alto and Stanford by a 10 lane 101 freeway, multiple fences and a separate police force. Used to be without a commercial building larger than a doughnut shop until Home Depot, IKEA and a few brave hi-tech companies decided to add tax base to the "poor side of town". Yep those fat cat bankers, and speculators decided to risk their lives and money to make a diff.. 

When my lifelong Calif buds started bragging the "standard of living" on the peninsula, this Southern raised boy would always take that for the veiled racism that it might have been.


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> Both helped African Americans overcome the troubles they faced as a result of the legacy of slavery and segregation.



how did a near genocide that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail,  and turned the kids into illigitmate, drop out, drug addicts and pushers overcome troubles? Are you nuts or just a liberal?

" We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Prof. Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often werent permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldnt do, what Jim Crow couldnt do, what the harshest racism couldnt do, Mr. Williams says. And that is to destroy the black family.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.



You have absolutely NO IDEA what "my brand of liberal socialism" is. All I've done in the above few posts is to torpedo a common right-wing economic myth: that everyone can be rich, and that how skewed our income distribution is has no impact on how well people who are not rich live.

But although you certainly jumped the gun there (demonstrating that you don't know how to answer what I said), I'll toss you a bone, and describe some of the characteristics of "my brand of liberal socialism" so that the next time you talk about it you won't be speaking in total ignorance.

I believe you're right that we cannot absolutely equalize outcomes. Or at least, I can't think of any way to do that. But this isn't a binary off/on proposition, equal or not equal, it's a more-or-less proposition, and we can be (and have been, and should be) more nearly equal than we are today. When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.

When I was a boy and the ratio was 50 to 1, a blue-collar worker made a middle-class income, and the middle class was huge and prosperous; in fact, most Americans, or anyway most white American men, were middle class. (I don't want to stray into discussions of racism and sexism here, as those are really separate issues.) My father was a machinist. On a machinist's income, he could own a home, take annual vacations, and send his three children to college. That's without my mother working. Try doing that on a working-class wage today.

Not only is this good for the working class and for people in general, it's good for the economy. At that time, when that paradigm of narrow income gaps prevailed, roughly from 1940 to 1980, the economy grew in per-capita GDP at a rate more than twice as great as it has grown since 1980. Recessions were fewer, shorter, and less severe, and periods of expansion were longer and more robust, less speculative, more arising from the production of real wealth.

The reason for this is because an industrial economy is demand-driven. The more demand there is for the products and services on the market, the more incentive there will be for investment in the production of products and services, and the higher the demand for labor. High wages mean more buying power widely distributed which means more consumer demand.

No, we almost surely can't exactly equalize outcomes. But we can make them a lot closer to equal than they are now, and if we did, our economy would be much healthier, as well as most people living better lives.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutely NO IDEA what "my brand of liberal socialism" is. All I've done in the above few posts is to torpedo a common right-wing economic myth: that everyone can be rich, and that how skewed our income distribution is has no impact on how well people who are not rich live.
> 
> But although you certainly jumped the gun there (demonstrating that you don't know how to answer what I said), I'll toss you a bone, and describe some of the characteristics of "my brand of liberal socialism" so that the next time you talk about it you won't be speaking in total ignorance.
> 
> I believe you're right that we cannot absolutely equalize outcomes. Or at least, I can't think of any way to do that. But this isn't a binary off/on proposition, equal or not equal, it's a more-or-less proposition, and we can be (and have been, and should be) more nearly equal than we are today. When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.
> 
> When I was a boy and the ratio was 50 to 1, a blue-collar worker made a middle-class income, and the middle class was huge and prosperous; in fact, most Americans, or anyway most white American men, were middle class. (I don't want to stray into discussions of racism and sexism here, as those are really separate issues.) My father was a machinist. On a machinist's income, he could own a home, take annual vacations, and send his three children to college. That's without my mother working. Try doing that on a working-class wage today.
> 
> Not only is this good for the working class and for people in general, it's good for the economy. At that time, when that paradigm of narrow income gaps prevailed, roughly from 1940 to 1980, the economy grew in per-capita GDP at a rate more than twice as great as it has grown since 1980. Recessions were fewer, shorter, and less severe, and periods of expansion were longer and more robust, less speculative, more arising from the production of real wealth.
> 
> The reason for this is because an industrial economy is demand-driven. The more demand there is for the products and services on the market, the more incentive there will be for investment in the production of products and services, and the higher the demand for labor. High wages mean more buying power widely distributed which means more consumer demand.
> 
> No, we almost surely can't exactly equalize outcomes. But we can make them a lot closer to equal than they are now, and if we did, our economy would be much healthier, as well as most people living better lives.
Click to expand...


This is off the topic of this thread maybe you should start a thread on the topic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a tingle down your leg when Dear Leader was introduced as "His Excellency" at the UN?
Click to expand...


Oh, my, daveman, you are silly, aren't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.
> 
> The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..
Click to expand...


I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works.  You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work."  There's far more to that.  We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, *and will not have the opportunity to be*.
> 
> Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:
> 
> 1) Anyone can become financially successful.
> 2) Everyone can become financially successful.
> 
> The reality is that there are only *so many "successful*" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.
> 
> If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.
> 
> Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.
Click to expand...


GI Bill?  Integrated military?  Enforced federal presence of civil rights?

Jroc, it sux to be you, truly does.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc has demonstrated the worthlessness of the Hard Right on this OP.  Fail.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, *and will not have the opportunity to be*.
> 
> Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:
> 
> 1) Anyone can become financially successful.
> 2) Everyone can become financially successful.
> 
> The reality is that there are only *so many "successful*" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.
> 
> If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.
> 
> Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GI Bill?  Integrated military?  Enforced federal presence of civil rights?
> 
> Jroc, it sux to be you, truly does.
Click to expand...


umm.. how do those equlize *OUTCOME* get a clue Jake. Read before you post


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't have a clue, do you?  You lost this a long, long time ago.  Hard Right revisionism is wrong history, wrong interpretation, and your kind is old, growing fewer in numbers, and will die out quickly.  Very soon, no on will remember your type of nonsense.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Don't have a clue, do you?  You lost this a long, long time ago.  Hard Right revisionism is wrong history, wrong interpretation, and your kind is old, growing fewer in numbers, and will die out quickly.  Very soon, no on will remember your type of nonsense.



Dude.. I just called you on your stupid post which made no sense, and you moderates are on the way out. People like you do nothing but hurt the Republicans in the long run  we can't tell the differance between you and the libs becouse there isn't much


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Not until you admit you acknowledged that the Dem Party is doing what I said it does.


----------



## daveman

flacaltenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.
> 
> The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..
Click to expand...

I worked with a guy at my last base.  Retired E-8, now working for a defense contractor.  Degree in business management.  Conservative.  Owned his own business on the side, a restaurant.  Gave it up not because it was failing -- it wasn't -- but because he and his wife were working themselves to death.  

Oh, and did I mention he's black?

I asked him once why blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  He said, "It's because they don't think for themselves."  They vote as they're told to, by their preachers, their family, their community leaders.  

Predictably, I will be called a racist for relaying this black man's opinion.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get a tingle down your leg when Dear Leader was introduced as "His Excellency" at the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my, daveman, you are silly, aren't you?
Click to expand...


No, I am not an Obamabot leftist.

You, however...


----------



## flacaltenn

JakeStarkey said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.
> 
> Stop being a fool, daveman.  We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.
> 
> The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works.  You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work."  There's far more to that.  We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't make much sense to be on the sidewalk shouting "go to work" right now. The economy is shrinking, the pie is getting eaten and the morons in charge have actually gotten their deepest wish.. It's the Progressives and leftists that were lecturing us about only having 5% of the world's population and holding 25% of the wealth. It was the LEFT that was whining about unsustainable rates of growth.  Go read what I said about EVERY American having a clear choice of a shrinking pie or an expanding economy and GDP here :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4172307-post543.html

That should speak to CURRENT folks about the clear economic advantage of NOT scapegoating biz and the rich, when the problem is preparing America for the 21st Century of jobs and world trade. If Obama cared as much about getting inventors, creators, designers, and entreprenuers back on line as he cares about the class war agenda, people and the markets would respond. 

What part of THAT choice doesn't "reach out" to the black community?? Can't shout at people now to go to work. We've got to rescue the coming generation of workers and stop abandoning black children in failing public schools that think imposing standards and high expectations is racist. One of the 1st things that the DEMs did when they took control in 2008 was to scale back the DC voucher program.. That was a lifeline for parents who give a crap. And if you look at the leadership of the voucher movement -- your gonna find a boatload of notable blacks. Not that vouchers are the ONLY method. BUt it's the only one available NOW TODAY for black parents trapped in that nightmare. 

Lots of reaching out happening on the economic front. And the choices are really clear right now. You might be surprised how fast the Uncle Tom's can multiply...


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon::

Just a comment on one point.. 



> When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.



When you were a boy -- I'm guessing that Caterpillar Tractor was a successful mid-size company in Peoria Ill.. TODAY --



> Caterpillar products and components are manufactured 110
> facilities worldwide. 51 plants are located in the United States
> and 59 overseas plants are located in Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
> Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
> Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, the
> People's Republic of China, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South
> Africa and Sweden.



They now employ almost 100,000 people worldwide and manage $70BILL in assets. They make everything from shoes to financial products to the worlds largest construction machines. 

That 50 to 1 versus 1000 to 1 "salary problem" you're so worried about? How do you think the Union negotiation would go if the boss was asking you to go from managing 1955 Caterpillar to 2010 Caterpillar worldwide and 20 large sub-businesses? The responsibilities, stresses and employee ratio has changed almost 10 fold. Take that into account when you're bitchin about having to work late.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> When you were a boy -- I'm guessing that Caterpillar Tractor was a successful mid-size company in Peoria Ill.. TODAY --



Yes, outsourcing is one of the two big reasons for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the other being automation. However, the loss of manufacturing jobs is NOT the reason for the decline in real wages. Most of the people who lost those factory jobs found service jobs; unemployment didn't soar. But the service jobs paid lower wages on the average.

Why is that? Is it some inherent characteristic or intrinsic value to service as opposed to manufacturing work? Not at all. There was a time when manufacturing jobs paid shit wages, too (overseas in third world countries, they still do). What changed that? Very simple: manufacturing was unionized.

Why wasn't the service sector unionized in the 1980s-1990s the way that manufacturing was in the 1930s? Here's one clue:

File:Illegal Union Firing 1952 - 2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1952 to 1975, the percentage of union elections that featured an illegal firing never topped 8%. Starting about the time Jimmy Carter became president, the rate of illegal firings soared to 14%, and then jumped to 31% in Reagan's first term. Since then, it has fluctuated from 16% under Clinton to around 25% under the Republican presidents.

Why did this happen? Most likely hypothesis: because the government's policy on enforcing labor law has changed. Penalties for illegal suppression of unions have become inadequate to deter the practice; fines for this can now be seen as part of the cost of doing business, cheaper than allowing the employees to organize. And of course, legislation to correct the matter has never succeeded in passing Congress.

The only thing that would prevent us from having real wages comparable to what my father earned would be an economy that couldn't afford it, and that isn't the reality.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you were a boy -- I'm guessing that Caterpillar Tractor was a successful mid-size company in Peoria Ill.. TODAY --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, outsourcing is one of the two big reasons for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the other being automation. However, the loss of manufacturing jobs is NOT the reason for the decline in real wages. Most of the people who lost those factory jobs found service jobs; unemployment didn't soar. But the service jobs paid lower wages on the average.
> 
> Why is that? Is it some inherent characteristic or intrinsic value to service as opposed to manufacturing work? Not at all. There was a time when manufacturing jobs paid shit wages, too (overseas in third world countries, they still do). What changed that? Very simple: manufacturing was unionized.
> 
> Why wasn't the service sector unionized in the 1980s-1990s the way that manufacturing was in the 1930s? Here's one clue:
> 
> File:Illegal Union Firing 1952 - 2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> From 1952 to 1975, the percentage of union elections that featured an illegal firing never topped 8%. Starting about the time Jimmy Carter became president, the rate of illegal firings soared to 14%, and then jumped to 31% in Reagan's first term. Since then, it has fluctuated from 16% under Clinton to around 25% under the Republican presidents.
> 
> Why did this happen? Most likely hypothesis: because the government's policy on enforcing labor law has changed. Penalties for illegal suppression of unions have become inadequate to deter the practice; fines for this can now be seen as part of the cost of doing business, cheaper than allowing the employees to organize. And of course, legislation to correct the matter has never succeeded in passing Congress.
> 
> The only thing that would prevent us from having real wages comparable to what my father earned would be an economy that couldn't afford it, and that isn't the reality.
Click to expand...


This gets waay off topic Dragon. But I'm surprised that the points you took away from post were were points that I didn't make. Outsourcing being a result of Caterpillar expansion is arguable. Since American employment at Caterpillar has easily TRIPLED in the same period of time. It's hard to make thousands of tons of tractors for Russia in Peoria and ship the results. 

I only wanted you to consider that there are REAL VALID reasons for increases in LARGE corp CEO pay. And I only gave one of many reasons WHY those jobs are more valuable today..


----------



## rightwinger

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon::
> 
> Just a comment on one point..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you were a boy -- I'm guessing that Caterpillar Tractor was a successful mid-size company in Peoria Ill.. TODAY --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caterpillar products and components are manufactured 110
> facilities worldwide. 51 plants are located in the United States
> and 59 overseas plants are located in Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
> Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
> Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, the
> People's Republic of China, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South
> Africa and Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They now employ almost 100,000 people worldwide and manage $70BILL in assets. They make everything from shoes to financial products to the worlds largest construction machines.
> 
> That 50 to 1 versus 1000 to 1 "salary problem" you're so worried about? How do you think the Union negotiation would go if the boss was asking you to go from managing 1955 Caterpillar to 2010 Caterpillar worldwide and 20 large sub-businesses? The responsibilities, stresses and employee ratio has changed almost 10 fold. Take that into account when you're bitchin about having to work late.
Click to expand...


Your analogy would work unless you compare the compensation of American CEOs to foreign CEOs. American CEOs do not outperform their foreign competitors, in fact, they have lost market share. Yet they receive considerable more compensation


----------



## Dragon

rightwinger said:


> Your analogy would work unless you compare the compensation of American CEOs to foreign CEOs. American CEOs do not outperform their foreign competitors, in fact, they have lost market share. Yet they receive considerable more compensation



Damn, I completely missed the point of his post, didn't I? That should teach me to be more careful. Sorry about that.

Oh, well, what I said in response still needed to be said.

As Rightwinger points out, U.S. CEO salaries are ridiculously over-competitive compared to the world market. Of course, the labor market in the U.S., including at that exalted level, is to a large extent self-contained because of U.S. immigration law. If CEO compensation were to drop by a factor of 10, while at the same time wages were doubled, we would return to that 50-to-1 ratio that prevailed before. (If CEO compensation dropped by a factor of 20, that would really solve no problems; what we need to do is raise wages.)

I'm sure that existing CEOs would howl at a tenfold pay cut, but that would still leave CEO compensation in the high six figures, which is quite enough to attract the best talent available. Where else would they go to make money like that?


----------



## flacaltenn

So? Our SPORTS figures are ridiculously overpaid compared to the rest of the world also. So are our movie stars and prostitutes.  Are you two all indignant about that? 

You could mugged that CEO in the parking lot and distribute his salary among 100,000 employees or so and they could all afford one new set of cheap tires for their cars. But if the guy they hire at 1/20 of his salary screws up -- 20,000 could be unemployed next year..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> So? Our SPORTS figures are ridiculously overpaid compared to the rest of the world also. So are our movie stars and prostitutes.  Are you two all indignant about that?



Only in another thread . . .

The excessive compensation of overpaid sports stars and movie stars isn't directly related to the maldistribution of wealth in this society the way absurd executive compensation is. Overpaid executives and underpaid workers are two sides of the same coin, two parts of a system designed to funnel an increasing share of the nation's income to its richest people. That is not only unfair, it's also economically disastrous.

The real problem in our economy today is that too few people have enough money. That leaves consumer demand depressed. For a while, this was compensated for with excessive consumer credit, but that's no longer an option. The economy will remain depressed, cycling around a lower level of performance, just as it did in the 1930s, until that maldistribution is corrected.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Our SPORTS figures are ridiculously overpaid compared to the rest of the world also. So are our movie stars and prostitutes.  Are you two all indignant about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in another thread . . .
> 
> The excessive compensation of overpaid sports stars and movie stars isn't directly related to the maldistribution of wealth in this society the way absurd executive compensation is. Overpaid executives and underpaid workers are two sides of the same coin, two parts of a system designed to funnel an increasing share of the nation's income to its richest people. That is not only unfair, it's also economically disastrous.
> 
> The real problem in our economy today is that too few people have enough money. That leaves consumer demand depressed. For a while, this was compensated for with excessive consumer credit, but that's no longer an option. The economy will remain depressed, cycling around a lower level of performance, just as it did in the 1930s, until that maldistribution is corrected.
Click to expand...


So exactly what should multiple be for Peyton Mannings salary compared to the 10 people cleaning the locker room? Would 1000 to 1 be excessive? And who made you the expert on compensation? That's EXACTLY the same "maldistribution of wealth" that you are bitchin' about.. Consistency is good. 

So many misconceptions -- so little time.. No wonder you don't see a need for black Americans to even consider "the other political" party.. 

First off -- USED to be that consumer demand MADE a difference to salaries and jobs. Today, when we make less and less domestically -- all consumer demand does is drive up the number of boats from China docking in Long Beach.. You can no longer move this economy AS effectively from the consumer level.. TODAY trying to stimulate the economy from consumer demand DOES INCREASE the wealth gap by putting profits in American corporate pockets and more jobs in foreign factories. 

Secondly, the stagnant economy is NOT waiting on a wealth redistribution, it's waiting on Govt policy certainty.. The banks are holding money because the FED is paying them more to KEEP it than to loan it. And the regulators are waiting to pounce on their asses if they don't like HOW they loaned it.  100 MORE important impediments to the economy than how much money Phil Mickleson makes this year on tour...


----------



## Dragon

The relation between consumer demand and wages and salaries hasn't changed merely because we are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to third-world countries. Before the economy tanked, those who lost manufacturing jobs found service jobs; unemployment didn't soar. The problem was that the lost manufacturing jobs were mostly union jobs, while the service jobs that replaced them mostly weren't, and consequently paid less. Before manufacturing was unionized, factory work paid shit wages, too (still does in those third-world countries).

We had a sea change in government policy around 1980 (it actually started in the Carter years but found full expression under Reagan) that reversed just about everything the government did in the four decades during and after World War II that created the most prosperous economy in the history of the world. Support for organized labor took a dive under Carter and a worse one under Reagan and has never really been restored. Reagan abandoned the commitment to a graduated income tax that prevailed for those highly-prosperous decades and returned us to essentially the pre-Depression tax system. And yes, outsourcing has also been encouraged by the government, although as noted above its impact can be exaggerated. (And is, more by liberals than conservatives.)

The fact that most employment is now in services (while U.S. manufacturing output remains very strong by the way -- it is simply not true that we don't make things any more, it's just true that we don't employ many people to make them compared to in the past), if services were well paid, would not matter. Raising everyone's pay would indeed promote more imports from abroad, as well as more purchases of what is produced here -- and more purchases of services staffed by Americans. That's a fundamental economic reality that doesn't change with changes of that nature.

While regulations and the actions of bankers or the Fed may have some (trivial) impact on investment, the fact is that companies are sitting today on mountains of cash. There is no capital shortage, there is a capital glut, and therefore nothing that reduces the availability of capital can explain why businesses aren't expanding and hiring. The explanation for that is what it always is: lack of customers to justify doing it.


----------



## Jroc

> With jobs, Reagan inherited a collapsing economy with unemployment rates rising from 7 percent in 1980 to 8 and 10 percent, respectively, in 1981 and 1982. By 1989, Reaganomics had cut the U.S. jobless rate in half, to 5 percent - especially good news, again, for those at the bottom who found themselves standing in ever-lengthening unemployment lines prior to the era of Reaganomics.
> 
> Altogether, 19 million U.S. jobs were created from 1982 to 1989, more than the total number of jobs created in Europe and Japan combined, two-thirds of them high- or middle-paying, producing real income increases in every income group, from the poorest fifth of households to the richest fifth. By 1988, over three-quarters of the tax filers in the poorest fifth of families in 1980 had moved out of that bottom quintile, with some 16 percent moving all the way to the top fifth of income earners.
> 
> *Among African-American households in the 1980s, the number of families earning more than $50,000 in real dollars doubled from 7 to 14 percent, the unemployment rate for black teenagers fell by 21 percent, black employment in professional and managerial occupations expanded by one-third, and the number of black-owned businesses increased by 38 percent, triple the rate of overall business growth during that period. Overall, the real median income of African-American households increased by 17 percent between 1982 and 1989, reversing the 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982. *
> 
> It doesn&#8217;t much matter, in short, whether ketchup is a vegetable or if Reagan embellished a bit about how many names the Cadillac lady had in Chicago (the welfare recipient to whom Reagan was referring was actually convicted for using two different aliases), what worked was a program of tax cuts, incentives and deregulation that unleashed one of the strongest and longest economic expansions in U.S. history, an expansion that cut unemployment, increased business investment, raised productivity, reduced poverty and reversed the overall decline in the purchasing power of American paychecks.
> 
> And the red ink? Think of how deep it might have been if Reaganomics hadn&#8217;t reversed the nation&#8217;s economic decline, if the unemployment rate had continued on its way up, from 8 and 10 percent to 15 or 20 percent, pulling down the level of incoming taxes while simultaneously expanding government outflows on the newly unemployed and poor.



Reaganomics and the Poor


----------



## Dragon

File:Oil Prices 1861 2007.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1973, the U.S. economy entered the period of slow growth coupled with high inflation that is known as "stagflation."

In 1983-4, the U.S. economy rebounded from the severe recession of the early Reagan years into a period of restored prosperity in which inflation was fairly low and growth was fairly good.

In 1973, OPEC imposed an oil embargo on the U.S. and several other Western nations in retaliation for Western support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, and maintained oil prices at very high levels for years after the embargo was lifted.

In 1983, new oil fields, especially the North Sea oil field, brought their products to market, breaking the ability of OPEC to control prices, resulting in a period of low oil prices that lasted about twenty years.

In the second set of events, regarding the price of oil, we have a full, complete, and adequate account of the first set of events, regarding the U.S. economy. The years match exactly as do the effects (the high inflation of the 1970s being in fact pseudo-inflation for the most part, due to the price of oil).

Reagan's policies had absolutely nothing to do with the good economic times of his administration. He was simply the beneficiary of an accident of timing. If the high oil prices had gone on a year or two longer, he would have been a one-term president.


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.
> 
> The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works.  You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work."  There's far more to that.  We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *SNIP  *
Click to expand...


No, kiddo, you don't get to be the economic massa telling old black american what he gotta do to succeed in a white man's world.  

America is no longer, has not been for a long time, and will never go back to the white American world of the 1950s and 1960s.

We are in the 21st century, we are all in it together, and if we don't succeed together, we will fail as a nation state.  That's the part of Rush Limbaugh's social compact that he has rejected.  Fuck him.  The hard right is not going to succeed in their twisted goals culturally, economically, and politically.  Not going to happen.


----------



## rightwinger

Guess what Republicans?

African Americans get to decide who their allies are. Guess you are not doing too well


----------



## JakeStarkey

We need to do much better as GOP with black Americans.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works.  You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work."  There's far more to that.  We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SNIP  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, you don't get to be the economic massa telling old black american what he gotta do to succeed in a white man's world.
> 
> America is no longer, has not been for a long time, and will never go back to the white American world of the 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> We are in the 21st century, we are all in it together, and if we don't succeed together, we will fail as a nation state.  That's the part of Rush Limbaugh's social compact that he has rejected.  Fuck him.  *The hard right is not going to succeed in their twisted goals culturally, economically, and politically.  Not going to happen*.
Click to expand...


What might those goals be? What's the master plan? and why do you never critize democrats? it seems to me that you're as brain washed as the rest of the libs. if you are a Republican why?


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> if you are a Republican why?



Actually I'm kind of wondering the same thing.

Be that as it may, rightwinger, above, stated the bottom-line truth: it is African-American voters who get to decide who their allies are, and it is clear enough that they've done just that. To say, "We're the ones who are REALLY on your side, you've just been fooled by liberal propaganda and don't realize that policies pandering to the rich really will help everyone, and that our subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle courting of racists is just politics and doesn't mean anything," is an insult to people's intelligence.

If you want to gain black voters back as allies of the GOP, offer them what they want. Don't tell them what they ought to want instead.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> The relation between consumer demand and wages and salaries hasn't changed merely because we are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to third-world countries. Before the economy tanked, those who lost manufacturing jobs found service jobs; unemployment didn't soar. The problem was that the lost manufacturing jobs were mostly union jobs, while the service jobs that replaced them mostly weren't, and consequently paid less. Before manufacturing was unionized, factory work paid shit wages, too (still does in those third-world countries).
> 
> We had a sea change in government policy around 1980 (it actually started in the Carter years but found full expression under Reagan) that reversed just about everything the government did in the four decades during and after World War II that created the most prosperous economy in the history of the world. Support for organized labor took a dive under Carter and a worse one under Reagan and has never really been restored. Reagan abandoned the commitment to a graduated income tax that prevailed for those highly-prosperous decades and returned us to essentially the pre-Depression tax system. And yes, outsourcing has also been encouraged by the government, although as noted above its impact can be exaggerated. (And is, more by liberals than conservatives.)
> 
> The fact that most employment is now in services (while U.S. manufacturing output remains very strong by the way -- it is simply not true that we don't make things any more, it's just true that we don't employ many people to make them compared to in the past), if services were well paid, would not matter. Raising everyone's pay would indeed promote more imports from abroad, as well as more purchases of what is produced here -- and more purchases of services staffed by Americans. That's a fundamental economic reality that doesn't change with changes of that nature.
> 
> While regulations and the actions of bankers or the Fed may have some (trivial) impact on investment, the fact is that companies are sitting today on mountains of cash. There is no capital shortage, there is a capital glut, and therefore nothing that reduces the availability of capital can explain why businesses aren't expanding and hiring. The explanation for that is what it always is: lack of customers to justify doing it.



Really good response. I agree with most of it. Except for a couple important points. 

Probably our biggest diff is how and why the unions have lost relevence. That's a whole nother thread. But the gist of it is -- I support the right to collective bargaining but I don't agree with it. I'm just convince that unions have failed their membership by maintaining an early 20th century view of what a job is and refusing to care as much as about member's CAREERS as they do about the current contract. 

It's the unions that are now doing the dehumanization of the workforce and treating a job as a robotic position definable in contract. Every minor workrule mod is a bloody grudge match. When in fact, with new technology and changes in manufacturing techniques it's FLEXIBLITY that allows companies to survive. And forget CAREER help as a member of a union that sees programmed robots as it's membership. Your chance of getting into a desk job or a sales job or shifting from physical to mental burden as you age is near zero. 

China knows where the future of manufacturing is and it's NOT in cheap labor. It's in INTELLIGIENT FLEXIBLE labor.. I posted a thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/3943059-post1.html  --- that ALL union supporters should consider. If China beats us to a 21st century manufacturing model -- the game is truly over.  

Anyway -- ties right into your comments about the service industry. I've been ranting about that for about a decade now. A service based economy is not as likely to be able to expand and grow a GDP as a manufacturing one. Services are not as innovative and creative as goods. And service businesses are LOCALLY based models where in general there's a fixed pool of consumers to serve. It's the reverse of ONE widget factory distributing nation or world wide with unlimited access to customers. Define a new goods based product and you can capture the world from your base. Define a new service product and you have to laboriously build infrastructure in each new podunk town with a single traffic light. IT's a much harder and more capital intensive slog.. 

Economists are missing some of these nuisances. They are still working out of their 1970 college textbooks when the world has changed. Trying to inject consumer demand to build jobs doesn't have close to same effect it had 20 years ago. I KNOW that the path to more jobs is redefining manufacturing to make CHEAP labor irrelevent. That it will take a different kind of worker. A more skilled and flexible worker. THIS -- is the guidance we SHOULD be getting from the clowns in charge. And it's not "lack of customers" that keeps capital from investment. It's the concentration of capital and control in the hands of increasing large and inflexible corporations. Because they've learned to feast on taxpayer subsidies instead of feeding themselves. And the LITTLE guys, the innovators - have to jump larger barriers in regulation and financing to get started here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SNIP  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, kiddo, you don't get to be the economic massa telling old black american what he gotta do to succeed in a white man's world.
> 
> America is no longer, has not been for a long time, and will never go back to the white American world of the 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> We are in the 21st century, we are all in it together, and if we don't succeed together, we will fail as a nation state.  That's the part of Rush Limbaugh's social compact that he has rejected.  Fuck him.  *The hard right is not going to succeed in their twisted goals culturally, economically, and politically.  Not going to happen*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What might those goals be? What's the master plan? and why do you never critize democrats? it seems to me that you're as brain washed as the rest of the libs. if you are a Republican why?
Click to expand...


Drinkin da koolade are yah, podjo.  I criticize Dems for being racist too, as an example.  You are simply whining.  We have failed in the GOP toward the black Americans.  Grow up.  Whining and pining ain't shining, little star.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are a Republican why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
> 
> Be that as it may, rightwinger, above, stated the bottom-line truth: it is African-American voters who get to decide who their allies are, and it is clear enough that they've done just that. To say, "We're the ones who are REALLY on your side, you've just been fooled by liberal propaganda and don't realize that policies pandering to the rich really will help everyone, and that our subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle courting of racists is just politics and doesn't mean anything," is an insult to people's intelligence.
> 
> If you want to gain black voters back as allies of the GOP, offer them what they want. Don't tell them what they ought to want instead.
Click to expand...


Well Dragon -- I offered my COMPLETE support to those black and minorities parents looking to place their kids out of failing govt schools NOW TODAY -- and Jakeman suggested I was acting "all MASSA and 60s"... Wouldn't even copy my response that he found so offensive. 

Guess I need to go order the "Idiot's Guide to Talking Political Shit with Blacks" off of Amazon and come back and impress y'all with my sincerity.. Can't comply with giving everybody "what they want". There are good ideas and bad ideas. There are economically sound ideas and disasterous ones. Just like there are good choices and bad choices in life. 
If we don't agree -- we don't agree. 

Jake:: Whatever I said to set you off -- I can't find it.. There are real folks with real problems out there that NEED choices in leadership. Can't believe that ANY person or group is satified with either of the two monopoly parties right now.. 

If the polls say that they are --- I gotta believe they are fooling themselves..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are a Republican why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I'm kind of wondering the same thing.
> 
> Be that as it may, rightwinger, above, stated the bottom-line truth: it is African-American voters who get to decide who their allies are, and it is clear enough that they've done just that. To say, "We're the ones who are REALLY on your side, you've just been fooled by liberal propaganda and don't realize that policies pandering to the rich really will help everyone, and that our subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle courting of racists is just politics and doesn't mean anything," is an insult to people's intelligence.
> 
> If you want to gain black voters back as allies of the GOP, offer them what they want. Don't tell them what they ought to want instead.
Click to expand...


Dragon, you are wondering about something that isn't difficult.  I can't change the Dems.  I don't want to, because much of what the Dems do beats themselves.  Since 1860, only nine Dems have won the presidency for 15 terms.  The pubs have won fifteen for 22 terms.  In other words, the country has grown to prefer traditionally a solid middle class with purchasing power, a traditionally progressive right of center GOP.  However, when the Pubs fail as they have steadily since 1980, the Dems have snuck in with left of center progressivism of increasing liberal reform.

In the 21st century, if the Dems remain the party of the minority powers, while the minority powers are steadily increasing their numbers, the GOP will inevitably be pushed to the side.  The Ryanistas and the libertarian wings of the GOP, should they gain power, will place the GOP in the minority permanently.

I can't change the Dems, but I sure can work for change in the GOP.


----------



## Angry_Vegetable

A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.


----------



## flacaltenn

Angry_Vegetable said:


> A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.



And some of them like the Angry Byrd from W.Va was absolved of his KKK sins and welcomed to stay for another 40 years...  As hard as he tried -- he just couldn't lose the N-Word -- could he?


----------



## flacaltenn

So Jake:

Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?


----------



## Angry_Vegetable

flacaltenn said:


> Angry_Vegetable said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And some of them like the Angry Byrd from W.Va was absolved of his KKK sins and welcomed to stay for another 40 years...  As hard as he tried -- he just couldn't lose the N-Word -- could he?
Click to expand...


Yeah, can't really make an excuse for that guy.


----------



## rightwinger

flacaltenn said:


> So Jake:
> 
> Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?



We shall see when it comes time to actually vote for him


----------



## Jroc

Angry_Vegetable said:


> A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.



Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties




> The claim that Democrats left the Democrat party for the Republican party, especially after LBJ signed the Civil rights act of 1964 is a lie. Democrats, including racist ones, stayed within the Democratic fold, with the exception of one or two Democrats, And those one or two were told to leave the racist garbage behind. The fact of the matter is that LBJ went to the Republicans to help him pass the act because he knew he would have very little support among his fellow Democrats. And the Republicans voted in favor of it in higher percentages than the Democrats did. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their "overwhelming support" of the Act. Now in light of that fact, why would a racist Democrat cross over to the Republican party?
> 
> LBJ did indeed make a prediction that he had signed over the south to the Republicans because of this 1964 act, but he turned out to be wrong. *The south stayed in Democrat hands for another 30 years. *When it finally did turn Republican, it was because of economic and social issues, not because of racism or the 1964 civil rights act.




When did the Southern Democrats become the conservative Republicans and why? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## Jroc

> *The Myth of &#8216;the Southern Strategy&#8217;  *
> By CLAY RISEN
> Published: December 10, 2006
> Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members &#8212; and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a &#8220;Southern strategy&#8221; that championed &#8220;states&#8217; rights.&#8221;
> 
> It&#8217;s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book &#8220;The End of Southern Exceptionalism,&#8221; Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however &#8212; and here&#8217;s the surprise &#8212; even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
> 
> The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys.



The Myth of &#8216;the Southern Strategy&#8217; - New York Times


----------



## rightwinger

If Republicans fret over no longer having the black vote, think how they pissed away the Hispanic vote

- English as the official language
- citizenship checks for people who look Hispanic
- blocking the path to citizenship

Nothing says "No room in our tent" like the GOP


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> So Jake:
> 
> Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?



He is very interesting.  Do you believe his path is the only  was for black Americans?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Angry_Vegetable said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties
Click to expand...


No, your talking points, Jroc, did not answer the question at all.  The fact is the Strom Thumonds and his apologists were the heart and soul of white racist crossover from Dem to GOP.  Your lie about the Southern Strategy is routinely exposed.

You keep lying, and you will keep getting your lies kicked up your rhetorical ass.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angry_Vegetable said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of those racist southern Democrats became Republicans in the 70's and the 80's, like a game of musical chairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I've covered this already only one switched parties
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your talking points, Jroc, did not answer the question at all.  The fact is the Strom Thumonds and his apologists were the heart and soul of white racist crossover from Dem to GOP.  Your lie about the Southern Strategy is routinely exposed.
> 
> You keep lying, and you will keep getting your lies kicked up your rhetorical ass.
Click to expand...


Name um only one switched Jake. You have contributed nothing to this thread but empty comments who switched Jake?


----------



## Dragon

Regarding the Southern Strategy, here are the words of Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips in a 1970 New York Times article:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

Here is what Lee Atwater said in 1981 on the same subject:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"&#8212;that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me&#8212;because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******"."

The intent to provoke and use racial tensions, sacrificing most of the black vote in exchange for the "Negrophobe white" vote, is clear and obvious. But in order to do this, the Republicans had to turn their backs on the support for racial equality that was the party's original _raison d'être_ and had been one of its core values from then until the 1960s. In appealing to Southern whites, who were disaffected from the Democrats and up for grabs, the Republicans by the same move lost their appeal to votes in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, areas that had always been Republican strongholds.

The article that jroc linked and partly quoted, in which a Southerner insisted that the "Southern strategy" was not racially based, is one of a long series of similar attempts by Southern writers to deny the racial basis of many events in Southern political history and insist on an economic base. It is in the same family as arguments that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, in the face of several declarations by the seceding states to the effect that that was _exactly_ what it was about. Recognized for what it is, it can be dismissed.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Regarding the Southern Strategy, here are the words of Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips in a 1970 New York Times article:
> 
> "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
> 
> Here is what Lee Atwater said in *1981 *on the same subject:
> 
> "You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"&#8212;that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.
> 
> "And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me&#8212;because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******"."
> 
> The intent to provoke and use racial tensions, sacrificing most of the black vote in exchange for the "Negrophobe white" vote, is clear and obvious. But in order to do this, the Republicans had to turn their backs on the support for racial equality that was the party's original _raison d'être_ and had been one of its core values from then until the 1960s. In appealing to Southern whites, who were disaffected from the Democrats and up for grabs, the Republicans by the same move lost their appeal to votes in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, areas that had always been Republican strongholds.
> 
> The article that jroc linked and partly quoted, in which a *Southerner insisted that the "Southern strategy" was not racially based, is one of a long series of similar attempts by Southern writers to deny the racial basis of many events in Southern political history *and insist on an economic base. It is in the same family as arguments that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, in the face of several declarations by the seceding states to the effect that that was _exactly_ what it was about. Recognized for what it is, it can be dismissed.



Southerner?...



> Title: Hawkins Chair of Political Science
> 
> 
> Research and teaching in American politics, broadly construed. Particular interests include: political parties, institutional reform, social cleavages, policy conflict, issue evolution, political orders, American political development, national party conventions, cultural issues, electoral campaigns, American exceptionalism, British politics, comparative politics of the G-7, empirical theory, classical political science, sociology of knowledge. Concerned with the &#8216;big picture&#8217; in American political life, and with locating further research within this larger framework.



UW-Madison: Political Science Department



And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems means nothing


----------



## Jroc

> In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George (&#8220;Your home is your castle!&#8221 Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order.
> 
> When the &#8217;68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon &#8211; who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand:
> 
> * raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;
> 
> * doubled the budget for black colleges;
> 
> * appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions
> than any president, including LBJ;
> 
> * adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks
> in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and
> universities;
> 
> * invented &#8220;Black Capitalism&#8221; (the Office of Minority Business
> Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses
> from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business
> loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits
> in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent;
> 
> * raised the share of Southern schools that were
> desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the
> U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, &#8220;It has only been
> since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation
> has taken place in the South.&#8221;
> 
> The charge that we built our Republican coalition on race is a lie. Nixon routed the left because it had shown itself incompetent to win or end a war into which it had plunged the United States and too befuddled or cowardly to denounce the rioters burning our cities or the brats rampaging on our campuses.
> 
> Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that.



The Neocons and Nixon&#8217;s Southern Strategy » Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Southerner?...



The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.



> And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems



So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.

You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices _today_. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.

It used to be the civil rights party. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.

The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.


----------



## flacaltenn

JakeStarkey said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Jake:
> 
> Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is very interesting.  Do you believe his path is the only  was for black Americans?
Click to expand...


You're testing me ain'tcha? After being called Massa for offering opinion, I'm not walking into that one. THAT'S for you to decide.. 

But I find it interesting that Cain was NOT drafted into that role. He suited up voluntarily and he's not denying his heritage. I don't see much "reaching out" from a capable Black Gooper. He's not asking what he can do for "his people". Why do you think that is?

Do you think Cain has just ABANDONED the wishes and demands of the black voting block?


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southerner?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices _today_. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.
> 
> It used to be the civil rights party. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.
> 
> The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.
Click to expand...


Obviously -- what Atwater said was undeniable when it came to busing or certain invocations of "states rights".  But I doubt that looking for the "veiled" racism in every expression to cut taxes, end unfunded mandates, reduce regulation is gonna be productive. Because the FACT is that the "poor constituency" is not largely black. And some of the political divide is actually philosophical and NOT racial. So how could the GOP be targeting Atwaters "negroids" by backing every policy that affects "the poor"?  

Feeling comfortable with ever-expanding, ever more powerful Govt is a dangerous hallucinagen. Especially if you think it's expanding because it loves you....


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Obviously -- what Atwater said was undeniable when it came to busing or certain invocations of "states rights".  But I doubt that looking for the "veiled" racism in every expression to cut taxes, end unfunded mandates, reduce regulation is gonna be productive. Because the FACT is that the "poor constituency" is not largely black. And some of the political divide is actually philosophical and NOT racial. So how could the GOP be targeting Atwaters "negroids" by backing every policy that affects "the poor"?
> 
> Feeling comfortable with ever-expanding, ever more powerful Govt is a dangerous hallucinagen. Especially if you think it's expanding because it loves you....



It's a good deal more subtle nowadays than just "veiled racism" in all such positions. In fact, the amount of overt racism in the South itself and among Southern white voters is a lot less than it used to be.

The lower-income constituency isn't largely black, but it's disproportionately black.

Fileersonal income race.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This shows that the median income for white non-Hispanic individuals age 25 and older in 2005 was roughly $33k, but for blacks only $26k and for Hispanics about $24k. The U.S. census found that in 2008, 13.2% of Americans lived in poverty, but 8.6% of whites, 23.2% of Hispanics, and 24.7% of blacks. Put another way, almost three times as many blacks, measured as a percentage of the total black population, live in poverty as whites. That's so even though white poor people represent a larger total than black poor people; this happens simply because there are more whites than blacks in this country.

Of those blacks who are not technically "poor," many more are above the poverty line but still lower-income working-class than is true, by percentage, of whites. And there are fewer upper-income black people as a proportion of the total black population than upper-income whites, and still fewer (though of course not zero) black people among the very rich.

At this point, while some racism remains in this country, the difference between black and white interests is more a matter of class than race. The economic interests of a poor person or a lower-income working-class person are simply not the same as the economic interests of the rich. If Republicans had not abandoned the black vote in the 1960s, they probably would never have gone as far to the right on economic issues as they have. The GOP position on economic issues used to be much more moderate, and sometimes full-on progressive, in the old days. So the move of the GOP to the right arose out of the southern strategy even though it has by this time transcended simplistic racial issues. Those black voters who do vote Republican, and there are some, are probably in most cases voting their class interests, too -- because although black people are disproportionately poor and lower-class, not all of them are.

As for the "ever expanding, ever more powerful government" idea, I remind you that conservatives are not libertarians. They do not oppose government expansion across the board; they favor it where it serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The maintenance of a powerful military and willingness to engage in wars overseas, the support for a powerful national security apparatus that is less contained by the Bill of Rights than liberals and libertarians feel it should be, support for laws outlawing abortion or birth control or defining marriage narrowly, none of these are small-government ideas. In reverse, liberals do not favor government expansion across the board any more than conservatives oppose it; we tend to take opposite stands on all the issues above to conservatives, and favor carefully restraining the power of the state to directly impose itself on people's private lives. Of course, there are also areas where liberals favor more government than conservatives do; neither one is _consistently_ either for or against "big government" because that is not, for either, the true defining issue (although conservatives sometimes pretend it is for them).

(Needless to say, or it should be, when I say "liberal" I do not mean "Democratic." Many Democrats are not liberal. Including the president, IMO although he is good at talking like one.)


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southerner?...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The similarity is there wherever he comes from, and the nonsense in view of the statements of those who designed the Southern strategy remains clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your anecdotal bull doesn't mean anything I could find plenty of racist crap by tons of dems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So could I. The difference, though, is that YOU are trying to claim a counterfactual and I am not. If I were to claim that the Democrats had never, in their long history as a party, exhibited racist traits, then such quotes might embarrass me. I'm not, though.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are trying to claim that the Republican Party hasn't changed, so that its long and honorable history of support for civil rights should influence anyone's voting choices _today_. But it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP has indeed changed, and that for some Republicans this was a conscious political decision. The party's strategists chose to let the black vote go in order to appeal to the southern "Negrophobe" vote. In doing so, the GOP became in many ways the polar opposite of what it once was.
> 
> It used to be the civil rights party. Now, *it's not, and the Democrats are*. It used to be the party that championed workers' rights. Now, it's not, and the Democrats are. It used to be the party that was strong in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and (to a lesser degree) the West Coast, and was at its weakest in the South. Now, the Democrats have taken over all of the former Republican strongholds while the GOP has taken over the South.
> 
> The reason why black voters used to vote Republican by large percentages, but today vote Democratic by similarly large percentages, is very simple: both parties are, with respect to African-American interests, the exact opposites of what they used to be.
Click to expand...


Yeah how so? The alliance with the democrat party has done what exactly? Dems don't have to work for the black vote, because they have it. Like I said before with friends like the liberal democrats who needs enemies. The proof is in the state of the black family as it is today this is the Where Democrat party has taken them. We need look no further than that


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Yeah how so? The alliance with the democrat party has done what exactly? Dems don't have to work for the black vote, because they have it. Like I said before with friends like the liberal democrats who needs enemies. The proof is in the state of the black family as it is today this is the Where Democrat party has taken them. We need look no further than that



Actually, it might help if you do some thinking instead of just letting your knees jerk about this. Let me give you a hand on that.

First off the bat, the claim that out-of-wedlock births among black women are increasing is demonstrably false:

The math on Black out of wedlock births - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Entertainment - The Atlantic

In 1970, the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1000. In 1980, it was 87.9, and in 2005, 60.6. The birth rate for unmarried black women is _declining_, not increasing, and has been for around 40 years.

I've gotten into discussions on this sort of subject, not about race, with other people and pointed out flaws in the panicky reference to statistics that a higher percentage of babies are "born out of wedlock." I point out that this phrase can mean more than one thing. If Junior was "born out of wedlock," that could mean:

1) Daddy knocked up Mom and then split.
2) Mom and Dad are living together in a committed relationship but for whatever reason don't want to formally, legally tie the knot.
3) Mom got pregnant and Junior was born while they were still unmarried, but they've since married.

Of those three possibilities, only #1 is anything to worry about. So if the increase in the fraction of kids "born out of wedlock" means we have an epidemic of guys knocking women up and then splitting, then we have a problem, but if it only means people are taking a more cavalier attitude towards legal marriage than in the past, we don't. Turns out to be the latter. _Elton John_ was born out of wedlock (a no. 3 situation, as his parents married when he was 4). Seems to me he's doing fine.

Secondly, just about all of the problems in the African-American community can be attributed to economics. Things have gotten worse for working-class people over the past few decades; there are fewer and fewer good jobs, and it's becoming harder and harder to find anything to hope for. And this shit falls disproportionately on black people just as it always does. So you get teenage boys in the inner city who can't find good jobs turning to careers in drug dealing instead, and why not? As Todd Snider put it:

If that's where it's at and no one's gonna help,
How you gonna blame a kid for helpin' himself?

But of course there are a lot of problems with working in the drug industry, starting with the fact that it's illegal and so by doing it you're a criminal and associating with other criminals many of whom are violent, so you have to be violent, too. It sucks, but recognize where it starts: with a system that favors the rich over the rest of us, together with the war on drugs.

Now, if you want to say that the Democratic Party has not been all it could and should be on these matters, hey, no argument. But that's a long way from saying that the Republican Party has been better. It most certainly and most obviously has been worse. And black voters can see that.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon::



> At this point, while some racism remains in this country, the difference between black and white interests is more a matter of class than race. The economic interests of a poor person or a lower-income working-class person are simply not the same as the economic interests of the rich. If Republicans had not abandoned the black vote in the 1960s, they probably would never have gone as far to the right on economic issues as they have. The GOP position on economic issues used to be much more moderate, and sometimes full-on progressive, in the old days. So the move of the GOP to the right arose out of the southern strategy even though it has by this time transcended simplistic racial issues. Those black voters who do vote Republican, and there are some, are probably in most cases voting their class interests, too -- because although black people are disproportionately poor and lower-class, not all of them are.



Agreed -- "more about class than race". So it escapes me how supporting a political party who's radical wing wants to hobble folks that exceed their class benefits. Now think carefully about "estate/death tax". 
Why is it that 1st generation wealthy blacks shouldn't be able to lift up their descendents? Think Venus/Serena Williams, NBA stars, entertainers, Bryant Gumbel, ect... Are you really that committed to the principles of Socialist redistribution as to deny them the choice of feathering their progeny's nest with a little well-earned "reparations"?? It certainly DOES "transcend racial issues" IMO.

Class disparity doesn't get solved by mere money. You could redistribute everything today and before the generation was buried, you'd see similiar disparities. You solve class disparities by the same methods that toned-down racial disparities. You change attitudes. And in the short term, you address the disparities in incarceration rates, graduation rates, out of wedlock births, and opportunities. Today black youth are FAR more employable than a purple-haired, pierced nose, tatooed Goth white teen. The competition is to make better choices.. 



> As for the "ever expanding, ever more powerful government" idea, I remind you that conservatives are not libertarians. They do not oppose government expansion across the board; they favor it where it serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The maintenance of a powerful military and willingness to engage in wars overseas, the support for a powerful national security apparatus that is less contained by the Bill of Rights than liberals and libertarians feel it should be, support for laws outlawing abortion or birth control or defining marriage narrowly, none of these are small-government ideas. In reverse, liberals do not favor government expansion across the board any more than conservatives oppose it; we tend to take opposite stands on all the issues above to conservatives, and favor carefully restraining the power of the state to directly impose itself on people's private lives. Of course, there are also areas where liberals favor more government than conservatives do; neither one is consistently either for or against "big government" because that is not, for either, the true defining issue (although conservatives sometimes pretend it is for them).



Reminder bud -- I'm NOT a Repub or even a Conservative. I am a "True Liberal" libertarian. The kind that believes in individual rights and sovereignty and has a basic distrust of Govt. So I have to agree with your brilliant analysis of what the Conservatives lack. But I doubt the DEM conviction to "restrain" Govt from meddling in every daily of our lives.. On the local/state level, these "social justice" phoneys motto is "there ought to be a law". A law to restrain chefs from using salt. A law to force flower vendors, hair braiders and taxi cab drivers to comply with crony cartels. A law to chose paper over plastic. A law to prevent kids from having lemonade stands. These are not libertarians or Conservatives with a never ending list of freedom destroying demands. So the "social freedom" image of TODAY'S DEM party member is ENTIRELY tarnished in the same manner as the "economic freedom" of TODAY'S REP party member is. 

In fact -- if a war broke out and I HAD to choose which foxhole to jump in.. I'd have to take my chances with the abortion/marraige deniers. Because at least -- THAT penchant to run my life wouldn't really apply..

And I guaranDAMNteeya that over at the LEFTIST foxhole there'd be some little dweeb in a Che Guevara tee shirt taking racial, sex preference, and income data from all the applicants and handing out Green shopping bags.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Agreed -- "more about class than race". So it escapes me how supporting a political party who's radical wing wants to hobble folks that exceed their class benefits. Now think carefully about "estate/death tax". Why is it that 1st generation wealthy blacks shouldn't be able to lift up their descendents? Think Venus/Serena Williams, NBA stars, entertainers, Bryant Gumbel, ect... Are you really that committed to the principles of Socialist redistribution as to deny them the choice of feathering their progeny's nest with a little well-earned "reparations"?? It certainly DOES "transcend racial issues" IMO.



In the U.S. in 2011, up to eleven million dollars can be passed by a married couple to their heirs estate-tax free. Under no proposals that I'm aware of to alter this arrangement would the first fairly huge amount of inheritance be taxed.

Now imagine yourself a lower-to-middle-income black homeowner (or homeowner of any race). You've got a house worth maybe half a million, some stocks and other property worth maybe another quarter million at most. Your entire estate is less than a million. It's nowhere NEAR the point where Uncle Sam is even thinking about taking a penny of it. Somebody in Congress wants to put a surtax on the estate tax so estates over $100 million get taxed at, let's say, 95%. Why in the world would you even care? If Bryant Gumbel's estate gets hit for a bill, that hardly leaves his heirs deprived, all things considered.



> Class disparity doesn't get solved by mere money.



It gets solved by changing the rules of the economic game, which are set by law in large part. The way it was done to narrow income gaps in the 1940s-1970s was:

1) Graduated income tax with confiscatory top marginal rates and full deductions for investment in job-creating activities.
2) Strict enforcement of labor law and protection of the right to form a union.
3) Certain kinds of social-welfare program, especially student aid and small-business aid. (The GI Bill did wonderful things for the economy.)

The first of these drove capital into the kind of investments that produce wealth and create jobs. The second resulted in high rates of union membership among workers (39% at maximum), which raised wages throughout the economy. The third helped open opportunities for a great many people who would not have those opportunities today.

Now this isn't the kind of thing that's usually meant by "wealth redistribution," but redistribution it is nonetheless, through the action of the market operating under changed parameters. Since 1980, all of those policies have been reversed, and we've had wealth redistribution in the other direction, again through the action of the market operating under changed parameters. And the government has to set the parameters somewhere; it can't NOT set tax policy, trade policy, labor policy, etc.



> But I doubt the DEM conviction to "restrain" Govt from meddling in every daily of our lives.. On the local/state level, these "social justice" phoneys motto is "there ought to be a law". A law to restrain chefs from using salt. A law to force flower vendors, hair braiders and taxi cab drivers to comply with crony cartels. A law to chose paper over plastic. A law to prevent kids from having lemonade stands.



I know the kind you're talking about, and they have the potential to become a national problem (that's how Prohibition started), but at the moment they're mostly nuissance-level. I would add that not all those laws are laws and many of them never will be. (That New York law about salt in restaurants did not pass, did it?) Expect more of this silliness over the next decade, though, as child-raising patterns change to become more overprotective. Sometimes public views on behaviors change sufficiently to warrant more restrictive local ordinances, like the way many states are tighter about public smoking than they used to be. But that's not really a liberal or conservative thing.

And -- once again, let's not confuse party with ideology. The Democratic Party is what it is, and it isn't in service to any ideology; the only thing it consistently cares about is gaining and holding office.

The really serious threats to liberty through direct government action come from conservatives. I'm thinking of things like the more objectionable provisions of the Patriot Act, or of the war on drugs, or some of the Big Brotherish anti-immigrant bills that have emerged in border states. Without defending laws banning kids' lemonade stands cuckoo, surely any of those is a more serious problem.


----------



## NoNukes

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> 
> Historical Points of Interest *
> 
> 1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Partys support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.
> 
> 2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.
> 
> 3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.
> 
> 4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.
> 
> 5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
> 6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
> 
> 7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, Let My People go. Wecame to believe it as a great and solemn command.
> 
> 8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation
> 
> 9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation. To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.
> 
> 10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.
> 
> 11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families
> 
> 12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.
> 
> 13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, Mystic Years.
> 
> 14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.
> 
> 
> 15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didnt ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.
> 
> 16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wifes feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands eves. By fear.In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slavesand the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.
> 
> 
> 17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery.For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.
> 
> 18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.
> 
> 19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.
> 
> 20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldnt get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.
> 
> 21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.
> 
> Black History



*This is history, not today.*


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon::

Again -- you're generally more than reasonable. Definately not a convicted Marxist.. 
Hell -- youre not even in Maxine Waters territory. But play fair.. You KNOW that every DEM member of the Black Caucus wants to put those death tax rules back into the punitive range of what they were before Bush with estates being taxed even at the 2 and 5Mill level!!!!! Don't give me what they are NOW after the Repubs set them to zero for a couple years. So what I said about BUILDING equity into the black community is still entirely valid.. Given current voting trends they would elect themselves into a non-promotable class over generations.. 

As for union rules -- I'm looking into reports that just this week, the Admin is pushing for rules that would require scab names and addresses to be put into the public record. That's WAAAY over the reasonable limit.. 

Anyway -- as far as the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs -- I don't suspect that DEMs have these as high on their priority list as scapegoating the rich. In fact, they ARE very high on Libertarian list. Along with school choice and other IMPORTANT realities of oppressive govt. So it bewilders me as to why "Libertarian lights" like the Repubs don't get more traction with black voters. Or why Libertarians who would actually FIX these things are non-starters in black caucuses everywhere.  Especially if you've seen the reports where the DEA has raided entire black communities in the South and taken tractors, cattle, cars, and trucks from the black residents suspected of being engaged in the drug trade. 

THOSE people are NOW Libertarians. They've been mugged by the loving, caring govt they helped empower.. 
And those national issues may NOT be as important to an aspiring black entreprenuer as the tons of regulation, licensing, and just silly rules that prevents him from selling hotdogs from a cart or driving a cab. Those little issues are mounting up and have a very large effect on economic and social freedom.. 


Got to go fertilize and seed the homestead before the rains come.. No -- REALLY.. It's not what you think. It's yardwork time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Jake:
> 
> Since you're working to make the GOP more responsive to blacks -- is Herman Cain a HELP or a hindrance? He does have a very loyal following -- doesn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is very interesting.  Do you believe his path is the only  was for black Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're testing me ain'tcha? After being called Massa for offering opinion, I'm not walking into that one. THAT'S for you to decide..
> 
> But I find it interesting that Cain was NOT drafted into that role. He suited up voluntarily and he's not denying his heritage. I don't see much "reaching out" from a capable Black Gooper. He's not asking what he can do for "his people". Why do you think that is?
> 
> Do you think Cain has just ABANDONED the wishes and demands of the black voting block?
Click to expand...


Wear the mantle of what you do.  Cain?  Is his path the only path for black Americans?  Can you answer that or not?


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Actually, it might help if you do some thinking instead of just letting your knees jerk about this. Let me give you a hand on that.
> 
> First off the bat, the claim that out-of-wedlock births among black women are increasing is demonstrably false:
> 
> The math on Black out of wedlock births - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Entertainment - The Atlantic
> 
> In 1970, the birth rate for unmarried black women was 96 per 1000. In 1980, it was 87.9, and in 2005, 60.6. The birth rate for unmarried black women is _declining_, not increasing, and has been for around 40 years.



Umm...the reason might have something to due with the unusually high abortion rate amoung black women




> which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.






> I've gotten into discussions on this sort of subject, not about race, with other people and pointed out flaws in the panicky reference to statistics that a higher percentage of babies are "born out of wedlock." I point out that this phrase can mean more than one thing. If Junior was "born out of wedlock," that could mean:
> 
> 1) Daddy knocked up Mom and then split.
> 2) Mom and Dad are living together in a committed relationship but for whatever reason don't want to formally, legally tie the knot.
> 3) Mom got pregnant and Junior was born while they were still unmarried, but they've since married.
> 
> Of those three possibilities, only #1 is anything to worry about. So if the increase in the fraction of kids "born out of wedlock" means we have an epidemic of guys knocking women up and then splitting, then we have a problem, but if it only means people are taking a more cavalier attitude towards legal marriage than in the past, we don't. Turns out to be the latter. _Elton John_ was born out of wedlock (a no. 3 situation, as his parents married when he was 4). Seems to me he's doing fine


.



> *72 Percent Of Black Kids Raised By Single Parent*, 25% Overall In U.S.
> 
> One in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent &#8212; a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to a report released Wednesday.
> 
> Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.
> 
> In the African American community, 72 percent of Black children are raised in a single parent household.
> 
> Here are some stats on the city to city breakdown of single parent families in the Black community from 2009.
> 
> Ireland was second (24.3 percent), followed by New Zealand (23.7 percent). Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxemborg had among the lowest percentages of children in single-parent homes.
> 
> Experts point to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. figure, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing. The U.S. also lacks policies to help support families, including childcare at work and national paid maternity leave, which are commonplace in other countries.
> 
> &#8220;When our parents married, there was a sense that you were marrying for life,&#8221; said Edward Zigler, founder and director of Yale&#8217;s Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy. &#8220;That sense is not as prevalent.&#8221;
> 
> Single parents in the U.S. were more likely to be employed &#8212; 35.8 percent compared to a 21.3 percent average &#8212; but they also had higher rates of poverty, the report found.
> 
> &#8220;The in-work poverty is higher in the U.S. than other OECD countries, because at the bottom end of the labor market, earnings are very low,&#8221; said Willem Adema, a senior economist in the group&#8217;s social policy division. &#8220;For parents, the risk is higher because they have to make expenditures on childcare costs.&#8221;
> 
> The Paris-based organization looked at a broad sector of indicators that affected families and children, including childhood poverty, early education and amount of time spent on parental care.
> 
> Across the nations examined, preschool enrollment has grown from 30 to 50 percent between 1998 and 2007. The average enrollment was 58.2 percent, while in the U.S. it was lower.
> 
> The report noted that public spending on child welfare and education is higher in the U.S. than in other countries &#8212; $160,000 per child compared to $149,000. However, the authors say most of that money is spent after the crucial early childhood years.



72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household, 25 Percent In U.S. | News One




> Secondly, just about all of the problems in the African-American community can be attributed to economics. Things have gotten worse for working-class people over the past few decades; there are fewer and fewer good jobs, and it's becoming harder and harder to find anything to hope for. And this shit falls disproportionately on black people just as it always does. So you get teenage boys in the inner city who can't find good jobs turning to careers in drug dealing instead, and why not? As Todd Snider put it:
> 
> If that's where it's at and no one's gonna help,
> How you gonna blame a kid for helpin' himself?
> 
> But of course there are a lot of problems with working in the drug industry, starting with the fact that it's illegal and so by doing it you're a criminal and associating with other criminals many of whom are violent, so you have to be violent, too. It sucks, but recognize where it starts: with a system that favors the rich over the rest of us, together with the war on drugs.
> 
> Now, if you want to say that the Democratic Party has not been all it could and should be on these matters, hey, no argument. *But that's a long way from saying that the Republican Party has been better. It most certainly and most obviously has been worse. And black voters can see that.*



Really? how so? most big cities have been run into the ground by liberal democrats great soceity policies were given to us by liberals and they have failed


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, that is an assertion without evidence: simply your opinion, and we all know better than to ever accept you at your opinion.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon::
> 
> Again -- you're generally more than reasonable. Definately not a convicted Marxist.



Well, I admit I was once. But that was when I was in my teens.
. 


> But play fair.. You KNOW that every DEM member of the Black Caucus wants to put those death tax rules back into the punitive range of what they were before Bush with estates being taxed even at the 2 and 5Mill level!!!!!



I actually don't know that, but I do know that even if it's so, the number of black families with $2 million in net worth is not large. I'm not going to address the pros and cons here; quite honestly the estate tax isn't one of my burning issues. (Although I kind of do see Bill Gates' point -- his father was absolutely against anyone inheriting vast wealth, and I believe Junior is, too. Not that the founder of Microsoft is in need of Dad's money at this point.) What I am going to point out is that it doesn't have a bearing on building prosperity in the black community. Looking at Gates again, he got a boost into opportunities most of us never glimpse while his father was still alive, when estate taxes weren't even an issue, and that's going to be the case with most people. On a less lofty level, families help their children by paying their way through college or helping them get capital to start a business, or something like that, not by leaving them the family fortune. Unless there are untimely deaths, and that's what trust funds are for. An increase in the estate tax simply isn't going to impact most black people, whether or not it's a good idea.



> As for union rules -- I'm looking into reports that just this week, the Admin is pushing for rules that would require scab names and addresses to be put into the public record. That's WAAAY over the reasonable limit.



This touched off my wild-ass rumor meter, so I did a search for Obama Administration and union rules and couldn't find anything that wasn't either a right-wing opinion piece or a brief filed on behalf of employers in the public-comment process. I went to the NLRB's home page but couldn't find anything on it. The briefs show that something remotely like what you're talking about is on the table, but without getting the details from somewhere I can't really judge what's happening.

To illustrate the problems with the right-wing opinion pieces, one of them from the Cato Institute talked about a 1973 Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. Enmons) that, in Cato's words, "shields unions and their members from prosecution after violent acts if they occur in pursuit of union goals." That is untrue. The decision held that the union cannot be charged under the federal anti-racketeering act of 1934 as long as the action is taken in pursuit of union goals, and that's ALL it said. The union can still be charged with incitement to vandalism, assault, or murder, or conspiracy to commit these crimes, and the individuals directly involved with the crime itself; in no way does the Enmons decision render a union or its members immune from prosecution for crimes, it only clarifies that that particular anti-racketeering statute doesn't apply. Given this bit of misinformation, I'm reluctant to rely on the same sources for information about the proposed new rule itself. I'll keep looking.

I would of course disapprove of a rule requiring disclosure of personal information of strikebreakers. I can see the utility of it (it would make hiring such people a LOT harder, and so make strikes more effective), but that's a line we really shouldn't cross.

I do approve of the other recent labor-regulation changes from the Obama administration this year, though. We seem to be moving in the right direction, quietly. I'll have to keep watching this.



> Anyway -- as far as the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs -- I don't suspect that DEMs have these as high on their priority list as scapegoating the rich.



It isn't scapegoating; the biggest problem with our economy at this time is exactly maldistribution of income. But re the Patriot Act and war on drugs (especially the latter), you are depressingly correct. I've found Obama a disappointment in so many ways, but the single biggest way is that he has not reversed the Bush administration's trampling on the Bill of Rights. There's no excuse for that.

However, I was not lauding the Democrats on that score so much as I was pointing out that the Republicans are hardly the party of small government in any consistent way. And liberals, including those Democrats who are liberals (remember the GOP is much closer to ideological consistency than the Democrats are, so that by no means are all or even most Democrats liberals) do oppose government overreach in these areas and vigorously defend the civil liberties and due process provisions of the Fourth and Fifth amendments.



> In fact, they ARE very high on Libertarian list.



I realize that.



> Along with school choice and other IMPORTANT realities of oppressive govt. So it bewilders me as to why "Libertarian lights" like the Repubs don't get more traction with black voters.



Well, maybe I can help you figure that out. First of all, "school choice" generally is a code for dismantling or downgrading public education in favor of some kind of voucher system for private school. But in reality, every such program I've ever seen pays only part of the cost of a private school education; most poor families could not afford the cost even with the vouchers, so the real effect would be to subsidize the private education costs of richer kids while further downgrading (or even eliminating altogether) the education available to poor kids. On top of that, private schools, unlike public schools, can legally be selective about what children they are willing to educate, and there are plenty of kids out there who, for one reason or another, simply can't attend a private school.

So black people simply don't see lack of "school choice" as an important reality of oppressive government. They see the attempt to remedy that "important reality" as a scam designed to give them the shaft yet again.

And finally, I would disagree strongly with your characterization of Republicans as "libertarians lite." They're not at all. Libertarians and conservatives tend to agree on a few economic issues, such as opposition to government regulations on business, but even so, conservatives usually back government subsidies and corporate welfare which libertarians find anathema, and of course in terms of government infringement of personal liberty they are poles apart.

I'm so glad I'm no longer a homeowner. I hate yardwork. But -- have fun & I hope all goes well.


----------



## flacaltenn

Of course Jake.. I can answer that. 

Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll.. 

Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon::

Just for the record -- I was gonna look up that Labor Dept rumor myself.. Here's what I found.. 

Here's the original "rumor".. 



> Perhaps more controversially: The rule would also require &#8216;scabs&#8217; &#8212; a derogatory term for people who cross a picket line to work for at company experiencing a union strike &#8212; to publish their private information as well. Because many of these people technically work as independent contractors, the information they would likely have to file with the Labor Department would include their home address, phone number and other personally identifiable information.



Here's what I found. Appears to be based on some reality of PROPOSED regulations coming from Labor Dept.. 

Department of Labor LMRDA Proposed Rule Change



> Page 86.
> 
> Additionally, Items 11.b, 11.c, and 11.d, respectively, require the consultant, as beforethe proposed revisions, to indicate the period during which activity was performed, theextent of performance, and the name and address of the person(s) through whom theactivity was performed. Item 11.d. would be revised to ask filers to specify if the personor persons performing the activities is employed by the consultant or serves as an independent contractor. In the latter scenario, the person or persons performing the activities is an indirect party to an employer-consultant agreement or arrangement, who would owe a separate Form LM-20 report.
> 
> Roughly page 108 -- form LM120



So it DOES appear to be some sort of requirement to file public documents in LM120 form for all labor brought in by consultants and contractors.. And it DOES require the names, addresses and other personal data of the proposed workers.. 

Just FYI -- keeping an eye on the monster.. I'll be back later..


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> Of course Jake.. I can answer that.
> 
> Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..
> 
> Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?



I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such.  I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.

I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.


----------



## flacaltenn

JakeStarkey said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jake.. I can answer that.
> 
> Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..
> 
> Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such.  I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.
> 
> I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.
Click to expand...


He's a Repub Jake. I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees. Chances of Cain screwing them over because of racism are pretty slim tho.. Kinda takes that wrinkled card out of the deck (except for the assaults he's ALREADY getting from the black media and "leaders of the Afro-American community".

I think the majority of black Americans need to be careful about "unqualified party loyalty". Because the extreme wing of the Dem party is destructive to the American standard of life on economic issues. Even elements of the far far left especially the Green movement are now recognizing that if the economy is hobbled and the debt pile becomes too big -- that THEIR agenda is gonna wither away. They are starting to sound a lot like deficit hawks in some places.. 

What I will stick my neck out to say is that the "solid black" voting block needs to recognize the entire spectrum of what's in the DEM pantry and REJECT destructive urges to become socialist tools in order to get serviced by the Govt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

flacaltenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Jake.. I can answer that.
> 
> Obviously Cain is NOT the only path for Black Americans. He's a VIABLE path. He's a qualified candidate. He just whooped ass in the GOP Fla straw poll..
> 
> Now tell me why he's not bringing peace and harmony between the black voting public and GOP like you say that you're trying to do.. Does he think his issue positions are detrimental to the black community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he was not viable, so you are flabbergating when you suggest such.  I do not know what he thinks if his positions being detrimental to the black community.
> 
> I am asking you if his position is reasonable for the majority of black Americans to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Repub Jake. I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees. Chances of Cain screwing them over because of racism are pretty slim tho.. Kinda takes that wrinkled card out of the deck (except for the assaults he's ALREADY getting from the black media and "leaders of the Afro-American community".
> 
> I think the majority of black Americans need to be careful about "unqualified party loyalty". Because the extreme wing of the Dem party is destructive to the American standard of life on economic issues. Even elements of the far far left especially the Green movement are now recognizing that if the economy is hobbled and the debt pile becomes too big -- that THEIR agenda is gonna wither away. They are starting to sound a lot like deficit hawks in some places..
> 
> What I will stick my neck out to say is that the "solid black" voting block needs to recognize the entire spectrum of what's in the DEM pantry and REJECT destructive urges to become socialist tools in order to get serviced by the Govt.
Click to expand...


Other than your poor exampling of what "socialist tools" are, I like much of what you write.  Social democratic action is not socialism.  The Great Society was a left-wing progressive form of reforming society, for instance.  Social engineering, yes; socialism, absolutely not.


----------



## Brutus

flacaltenn said:


> I don't generally trust Repubs to represent my interests (or any reasonable person's interests) unless they have libertarian pedigrees.



you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office. If they did not do that they would merely be impotent Libertarians.

It is the electorate that determines how libertarian Republicans can be.


----------



## Dragon

Brutus said:


> you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.



Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.
Click to expand...


Actually, there is a Republican Libertarian Caucus (or was).. Had a respectable list of members who were solid on ALL civil rights issues (as applied to individuals, not to groups). Gary Johnson IS a self-proclaimed Libertarian. And the scariest parts of Goldwater were also very much grounded in those principles. 

It MAYBE that things like War on Drugs, corp/govt collusion, Patriot Act, public school overhauls, just won't ever get fixed unless SOME wingnuts organize and focus on the basics of what govt should be doing. Why for instance do we waste so much time arguing about providing fair elections and voter rolls? Isn't that a PRIMARY role of govt? How can be such a persistent source of aggrevation if the massive govt structure was focused on the basics? Instead of grandstanding on trivia like caffeinated alchoholic drinks???


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to keep in mind that Republicans are Libertarians who compromise with independents and Democrats to hold office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the Pauls, not one Republican has any inclination to be libertarian.
Click to expand...


it must be coincidental then that the Pauls and other libertarians have been Republicans( not Democrats) , that since the first Republican- Jefferson- Republicans have supported the BBA, that 100% of Republicans voted against BO's stimulus, and that the Tea Party is Republican.

See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Brutus just demonstrated an incredibly low IQ with the above post: amazing.

Grow up.  Libs and cons are equally stupid and equally bright.  What a stupid ass comment, adds nothing to this discussion.


----------



## Brutus

JakeStarkey said:


> Brutus just demonstrated an incredibly low IQ with the above post: amazing.



so then why be so afraid to to explain exactly why you think it  demonstrated a low IQ???? What does your fear tell you?


----------



## Dragon

Brutus said:


> since the first Republican- Jefferson



Jefferson was a Democrat. The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially, but that's purely a linguistic accident. Jefferson died in 1823. The GOP was founded in 1854.


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the first Republican- Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was a Democrat. The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially, but that's purely a linguistic accident. Jefferson died in 1823. The GOP was founded in 1854.
Click to expand...


I guess the Congressional Record was wrong? See why we are positive a liberal will have low IQ?


5th Congress (1797-1799) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


----------



## Dragon

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy. . . .

"The presidents selected by the party were Thomas Jefferson (18011809), James Madison (18091817), and James Monroe (18171825). After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. It selected presidential candidates through its caucus in Congress, but in 1824, that system broke down. *The dominant faction of the party supported Andrew Jackson and evolved into the Democratic Party, a continuation of the original party with a truncated name.*"

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854, it is often called the GOP (Grand Old Party). The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the U.S. political spectrum and is considered center-right, in contrast to the center-left Democratic Party . . .

"The first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states. The Republican Party first came to power in 1860 with the election of Lincoln to the Presidency and Republicans in control of Congress and the northern states."

Learn the difference, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Brutus said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus just demonstrated an incredibly low IQ with the above post: amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so then why be so afraid to to explain exactly why you think it  demonstrated a low IQ???? What does your fear tell you?
Click to expand...


You made the allegation without any evidence, yet you want me "to to explain exactly" why I think they way I do.

Brutus, kiddo, come here.  Come closer, lean in, and I will whisper the answer.  You have to make a reasonable argument with facts, stats, evidence, analysis, etc., not a sweeping ass generalization and demand others refute it.  I will tell you what I tell others from the far right and far left who play this: fuck you.  Grow up and learn to be an adult.  This is not a difficult thing to do, most of us have graduate HS and many of us college, and some here are just brilliant.  Others are not: look in the mirror.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Brutus said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the first Republican- Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson was a Democrat. The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially, but that's purely a linguistic accident. Jefferson died in 1823. The GOP was founded in 1854.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the Congressional Record was wrong? See why we are positive a liberal will have low IQ?
> 
> 
> 5th Congress (1797-1799)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6th Congress (1799-1801)
> 
> Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Total Seats: 32
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 7th Congress (1801-1803)
> 
> Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)
> 
> Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)
> 
> Other Parties: 0
> 
> Vacant: 2
> 
> Total Seats: 34
Click to expand...


The record reflects the Democratic-Republican party as republican.  However, TJ was not the first Republican as you understand it.  He would have had his slaves put a boot up your backside for some of your comments here.


----------



## Brutus

JakeStarkey said:


> Jefferson was a Democrat.



do you have a primary source to support you???? I thought not, just a feeling ?? 





JakeStarkey said:


> The Democratic Party was called the Democratic-Republican Party initially,



a liberal will have such a low IQ it will not even occur to him to present evidence. A feeling is good enough for a liberal 


I guess the Congressional Record was wrong? See why we are positive a liberal will have low IQ?


5th Congress (1797-1799) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

6th Congress (1799-1801) 

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

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

7th Congress (1801-1803) 

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34[/QUOTE]



JakeStarkey said:


> The record reflects the Democratic-Republican party as republican.



check again to find a "R" not a "r". Sorry!!!!


----------



## Brutus

JakeStarkey said:


> You made the allegation without any evidence,



what allegation exactly???????????


----------



## JakeStarkey

Brutus has just demonstrated a low IQ in my answer to his question: "so then why be so afraid to to explain exactly why you think it demonstrated a low IQ???? What does your fear tell you?"  Then he wants to quarrel that TJ was the first Republican.  Sheesh.  If we are going that route, then he better look at James Dickenson's first "Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer."

Brutus, even Rush knows that definitions have certain meanings, and when he twists them to equate "social compact" with "marxism" he does so deliberately and dishonestly.

Learn 'republican' and 'Republican' and 'Democratic-Republican', what they mean historically, and how you are using them wrongly.


----------



## Jackson

Democrats want to give blacks a Hand Out whereas the Conservatives want to give them a Hand Up.

Hand outs kleep you in "your place" but a  hand out allows you to grow and step up from your lot in life through experiences, education and training.

Don't allow asnyone to keep their thumb on you and your life!


----------



## Jroc

Jackson said:


> Democrats want to give blacks a Hand Out whereas the Conservatives want to give them a Hand Up.
> 
> Hand outs kleep you in "your place" but a  hand out allows you to grow and step up from your lot in life through experiences, education and training.
> 
> Don't allow asnyone to keep their thumb on you and your life!



Democrats have to keep blacks on the plantation, they need them there. Victims and their so-called "sympathizers "are all the libs have.


----------



## Dragon

You guys are still running into that wall. Black voters obviously don't agree with you. So either you are wrong, or they are stupid. Which is it?


----------



## flacaltenn

Hey Dragon::

NONE of us look really brilliant in the voting booth given the usual 2 choices from the party cartels.. 

Do we? If one party screws up --- the other one wins.. What kind of excellent system is that anyway? 
That's why there's so much childish "your guy did it first" - "no your guy did it worse" crap on USMB. Because they're both guilty and the LEAST guilty get the biscuit.. 

Blacks can't screw it up any worse than the rest of us can they?


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> You guys are still running into that wall. *Black voters obviously don't agree with you.* So either you are wrong, or they are stupid. Which is it?



Does it matter? Some do.. The purpose of this thread is to get the word out. Stupid and ignorant are two different things.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Does it matter? Some do.. The purpose of this thread is to get the word out. Stupid and ignorant are two different things.



Correct. Consider the question suitably modified. The point remains that you're not going to win any votes by insulting the voters.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many here don't want black votes, they just want to insult black voters it seems.


----------



## Ropey

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are still running into that wall. *Black voters obviously don't agree with you.* So either you are wrong, or they are stupid. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter? Some do.. The purpose of this thread is to get the word out. Stupid and ignorant are two different things.
Click to expand...




			
				dragon said:
			
		

> Correct. Consider the question suitably modified. The point remains that you're not going to win any votes by insulting the voters.



I agree and if the ones who are ignorant voters don't want it, they don't have to read it and if they take offense at being ignorant, then they need to research and lessen their ignorance.

The information is helping some to lessen ignorance and the delivery of this kind of information needs to be strongly pushed imo.

Others will decide to increase in ignorance. I chose the reverse.

Choice is fundamental.


----------



## Dragon

It's interesting how the discussion has shifted. Originally, in the OP, it was "Blacks should vote Republican because in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was the GOP who did all these wonderful things for civil rights while the Democrats opposed them."

Then when it was successfully argued that the Republican Party that did all those great things was practically the polar opposite of today's GOP, the argument shifted to, "Blacks should vote Republican because Democrats will only corrupt their virtue and self-reliance with government aid, while Republicans will give them respect by expecting them to stand on their own two feet."

Yeah, those are real persuasive arguments, all right. I just can't understand for a second why black voters wouldn't vote Republican in ton lots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The simple fact remains that America grows darker every year and if the GOP wants to be a competitive mainstream party, it must meet minority as well as white concerns.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> It's interesting how the discussion has shifted. Originally, in the OP, it was "Blacks should vote Republican because in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was the GOP who did all these wonderful things for civil rights while the Democrats opposed them."



Wrong.. My original intention was to get info out there that few people today even know. I never said blacks must vote for Republicans, but isn't it good to be able to make an informed decision? 



> Then when it was successfully argued that the Republican Party that did all those great things was practically the polar opposite of today's GOP, the argument shifted to, "Blacks should vote Republican because Democrats will only corrupt their virtue and self-reliance with government aid, while Republicans will give them respect by expecting them to stand on their own two feet."
> 
> Yeah, those are real persuasive arguments, all right. I just can't understand for a second why black voters wouldn't vote Republican in ton lots.




That's your opinion we'll let others make their own conclusions


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Many here don't want black votes, they just want to insult black voters it seems.


Like who?


----------



## Ropey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many here don't want black votes, they just want to insult black voters it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Like who?
Click to expand...


I know one thing. When I am in discussion and someone tells me to give my head a shake and offers me new information. I research it closely. It is not an insult to tell me I am ignorant "IF" they show where the ignorance lies.

It's only if they call me ignorant without any qualifications, because then it is trolling and does not open discussion.

It closes it.


----------



## Jroc

Ropey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many here don't want black votes, they just want to insult black voters it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Like who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know one thing. When I am in discussion and someone tells me to give my head a shake and offers me new information. I research it closely. It is not an insult to tell me I am ignorant "IF" they show where the ignorance lies.
> 
> *It's only if they call me ignorant without any qualifications, because then it is trolling and does not open discussion*.
> 
> It closes it.
Click to expand...


That discribes Jake perfectly.


----------



## Jroc

Teachers unions are part of the problem with our public education, we are failing our poor and minority kids and theses unions are an arm of the democrat party. Democrats are against vouchers. Here is an interview with Dr. Steve Perry founder of Capital Preparatory Magnet School..    





> If you&#8217;ve ever seen him on CNN, listened to him on talk radio, or read any of his tweets on Twitter, then you&#8217;ve already gotten a glimpse of how Dr. Perry pushes the envelope. Whether it&#8217;s about teachers unions, the failing school systems, or his ideas on modern education and exploring the universe, he&#8217;s been know to ruffle a few feathers and get your attention.
> 
> *Teachers of Color: *What are some of the issues you find yourself dealing with in running a school?
> 
> *Dr. Perry:* The primary issue is making a modern educational experience that has extended days and is year round. And, of course the &#8216;old school&#8217; union.
> 
> *Teachers of Color:* You&#8217;ve often said the Teacher&#8217;s Union is the biggest challenge. Why is that, and do you think a new teacher should consider joining the union?
> 
> *Dr. Perry:* I *think if you love children and you love education, you can&#8217;t join a teachers union because they are working literally against our children and our families and our communities.  Specifically, they fight every single form of school reform that there is.*
> 
> *Teachers of Color:* What do you think is wrong with teacher unions? What do you say to our readers who support the ideology of unions?
> 
> *Dr. Perry:* What teacher unions do is guarantee people jobs regardless of what their actual contributions to the profession are. Young educators in training are going to lose their jobs to those teachers with tenure, or because their schools are failing and closes down.
> 
> *Teachers of Color*: How does that differ from your school and those who share your philosophy? How should it (the system) be?
> 
> *Dr. Perry:* How it should be is simply this.  It should be fully in vouchers.  I believe that we as a nation believe in vouchers.  We just don&#8217;t realize that always.
> 
> We believe in Section 8 which is a voucher.  We believe in food stamps which is a voucher.  Medicaid, Medicare both vouchers. Most importantly, as it relates to education, we believe in federal student financial aid which is what? A voucher.  A Pell Grant is a voucher.  It&#8217;s a federal voucher.
> 
> It says we will pay for your education up to  a specified amount. Based on your income. They will give you federal student financial aid.  This is expected for public and private schools.  So, I fully believe that our schools should be on a voucher system. But, the teachers unions are dead set against it even though every single parent in America wants to have the choice of where to send their child to school.
> 
> *Teachers of Color:* Right, but (Dr. Perry continues to say&#8230
> 
> *Dr. Perry: *Listen, there are some children, for instance, who don&#8217;t want to sit in a regular classroom.  They&#8217;re just not built for that. My thought is, if we had vouchers, that would allow them to learn in different schools throughout the country. In other communities.  What if it were a network of explorer schools throughout the country where the children could visit?  They could go from Harvard to New Haven, or from New Haven to Bridgeport, or from Bridgeport to New York City, right?  Trained, caring teachers would be with them, right.  What if we put them in a van that would take them somewhere outside of their community to learn.  Imagine how fired up those kids would be.
> 
> *Teachers of Color*: Great point.
> 
> *Dr. Perry: *That&#8217;s what you do with access to new schools.
> 
> *Teachers of Color:* I would like to have you talk a little bit about what you look for in teachers.  What are your expectations of the teachers you hired at Capital Prep?
> 
> *Dr. Perry: *Passion, and a love for kids.  I want to hear them use words like love.  I want to hear that their hobbies are doing things with kids.  That&#8217;s what I want to hear.
> 
> *Teachers of Color:* What about their background? What do you look for?
> 
> *Dr. Perry:* I don&#8217;t care what color they are. I don&#8217;t care what community they come from. I realized when I started this school that I needed to get good teachers regardless of their hue.  Everybody needs to understand that we owe it to our children to put the best teachers in front of them.




Dr. Steve Perry Interview |Find Teaching Jobs, School Jobs, & Cultural Diversity at TeachersOfColor.com


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Wrong.. My original intention was to get info out there that few people today even know. I never said blacks must vote for Republicans, but isn't it good to be able to make an informed decision?



The title of your thread is "Republicans: The Real Allies of African-Americans." This implies everything I said, and the evidence you presented in support of it all comes from the time when it was true (and when blacks tended to vote Republican). There is no denying that from the party's founding in the 1850s until the Democrats handed them a poisoned dinner in the 1960s, the Republicans were consistently in favor of civil rights and the Democrats not-quite-as-consistently opposed. (Actually the Dems were divided on the issue.) But the GOP has changed, and what was once true is true no longer. So the claim that the Republicans ARE the real allies of African-Americans is false, as opposed to the claim that they once WERE, which is true.



> That's your opinion we'll let others make their own conclusions



I don't think black voters are ignorant of current Republican positions on issues affecting black people. I'd say they have already drawn their own conclusions, and the only way to persuade them to change their minds is to change the reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. My original intention was to get info out there that few people today even know. I never said blacks must vote for Republicans, but isn't it good to be able to make an informed decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title of your thread is "Republicans: The Real Allies of African-Americans." This implies everything I said, and the evidence you presented in support of it all comes from the time when it was true (and when blacks tended to vote Republican). There is no denying that from the party's founding in the 1850s until the Democrats handed them a poisoned dinner in the 1960s, the Republicans were consistently in favor of civil rights and the Democrats not-quite-as-consistently opposed. (Actually the Dems were divided on the issue.) But the GOP has changed, and what was once true is true no longer. So the claim that the Republicans ARE the real allies of African-Americans is false, as opposed to the claim that they once WERE, which is true.
Click to expand...



Maybe you should read through the entire thread, along with the historical evidence listed that support the title of this thread, I also list the policies that Liberal Dems and their allies have currently that hurt African Americans, and Blacks in general. Get back to when you read the thread.



> I don't think black voters are ignorant of current Republican positions on issues affecting black people. I'd say they have already drawn their own conclusions, and the only way to persuade them to change their minds is to change the reality.



 Reality? Are facts realities? Yep.. Black Americans vote for liberal democrats.. Thanks for that little bit of info, but there is certainly nothing wrong with getting some additional information out there


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.



Thank you Jake for that "useful" post


----------



## Ropey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
Click to expand...


Jake can call for an end to a debate.

That call and a buck will get him a buck and the continuing debate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That post is dead right.  Either the GOP adapts or it becomes minority until it adapts to all of America.  Not going back to the 1950s and 1960s, Jroc.  America is darker, younger, and looking forward, and not back to your America of which they want no part.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ropey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake can call for an end to a debate.
> 
> That call and a buck will get him a buck and the continuing debate.
Click to expand...


That's the fun of it.  You see, I got the buck, and Jroc is a dollar poorer and still wrong.


----------



## Ropey

^Only when you call your own win Jake. 

When one is their own scrutineer, there's not much scrutiny...


----------



## daveman

Ropey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many here don't want black votes, they just want to insult black voters it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> Like who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know one thing. When I am in discussion and someone tells me to give my head a shake and offers me new information. I research it closely. It is not an insult to tell me I am ignorant "IF" they show where the ignorance lies.
> 
> It's only if they call me ignorant without any qualifications, because then it is trolling and does not open discussion.
> 
> It closes it.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  Some people don't want to discuss; they want to dictate.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.



Thanks for proving my point about some people wanting to dictate.


----------



## Ropey

JakeStarkey said:


> That post is dead right.  Either the GOP adapts or it becomes minority until it adapts to all of America.  Not going back to the 1950s and 1960s, Jroc.  America is darker, younger, and looking forward, and not back to your America of which they want no part.



It is not dead right because it has yet to occur.   It is a possible scenario projection. There are many and varied projections of future possibilities in all the parties. 

Dead right is an accomplished fact Jake.


----------



## Jroc

Ropey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post is dead right.  Either the GOP adapts or it becomes minority until it adapts to all of America.  Not going back to the 1950s and 1960s, Jroc.  America is darker, younger, and looking forward, and not back to your America of which they want no part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not dead right because it has yet to occur.   It is a possible scenario projection. There are many and varied projections of future possibilities in all the parties.
> 
> Dead right is an accomplished fact Jake.
Click to expand...


Jake seems to think his opinions are fact, it would be nice if he would at least present counter arguement and back it up.  I think he's just lazy. Notice, Jake says "My America" but fails to explain what he thinks "My America" is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc believes that it is not fact that America is getting darker or that it is getting younger or that Americans for the most part are looking forward not backward?  Jroc simply does not understand that his lack of understanding is any proof of other than he does not get it.

Counter arguments are only necessary when Jroc and others present a case.  They have failed to do so.


----------



## paperview

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. My original intention was to get info out there that few people today even know. I never said blacks must vote for Republicans, but isn't it good to be able to make an informed decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title of your thread is "Republicans: The Real Allies of African-Americans." This implies everything I said, and the evidence you presented in support of it all comes from the time when it was true (and when blacks tended to vote Republican). There is no denying that from the party's founding in the 1850s until the Democrats handed them a poisoned dinner in the 1960s, the Republicans were consistently in favor of civil rights and the Democrats not-quite-as-consistently opposed. (Actually the Dems were divided on the issue.) But the GOP has changed, and what was once true is true no longer. So the claim that the Republicans ARE the real allies of African-Americans is false, as opposed to the claim that they once WERE, which is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion we'll let others make their own conclusions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think black voters are ignorant of current Republican positions on issues affecting black people. I'd say they have already drawn their own conclusions, and the only way to persuade them to change their minds is to change the reality.
Click to expand...

^ This.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Blacks are smart enough to figure out GOPers hate working Americans, the same can't be said of trailer park Republicans.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> *Jroc believes that it is not fact that America is getting darker or that it is getting younger or that Americans for the most part are looking forward not backward?*  Jroc simply does not understand that his lack of understanding is any proof of other than he does not get it.
> 
> Counter arguments are only necessary when Jroc and others present a case.  They have failed to do so.



 Umm...What? What does "America is getting Darker" have to do with the title of this thread? I could care less what race people are, we are all Americans Jake. Thats the problem with liberals, they like to split people up in little groups then pander to or demonize these groups to further their political agenda. oh ..And as I pointed out, the African American population in this country is declining thanks to an arm of the Democrat party, the pro Abortion movement and Planned Parenthood.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc, you better believe that Americans take who they are and where they are at into consideration: income, race, sex, age, location, religion, work.  The growing majority of Americans are not in your field of dreams.

Do not sound like an 11 year old, please.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc, you better believe that Americans take who they are and where they are at into consideration: income, race, sex, age, location, religion, work.  The growing majority of Americans are not in your field of dreams.
> 
> Do not sound like an 11 year old, please.



Jake learn how to present an arguement, What are "my field of dreams"?


----------



## Ropey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc, you better believe that Americans take who they are and where they are at into consideration: income, race, sex, age, location, religion, work.  The growing majority of Americans are not in your field of dreams.
> 
> Do not sound like an 11 year old, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake learn how to present an argument, *What are "my field of dreams"*?
Click to expand...





^ This thread?


----------



## Jroc

> *Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party*
> 
> (The original piece is an e-mail from the author, Frances Rice, dated June 3, 2004)
> We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
> 
> Whereas in the early 1600&#8217;s 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,
> 
> Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
> 
> Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
> 
> Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
> 
> Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
> 
> Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
> 
> Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
> 
> Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
> 
> Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
> 
> Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.



Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
Click to expand...


My post is accurate.  The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> *Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party*
> 
> (The original piece is an e-mail from the author, Frances Rice, dated June 3, 2004)
> We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
> 
> Whereas in the early 1600s 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,
> 
> Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
> 
> Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
> 
> Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
> 
> Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
> 
> Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
> 
> Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
> 
> Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
> 
> Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
> 
> Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party
Click to expand...


Whereas, the Republican party abandoned black causes to embrace southern racists after the Civil Rights act passed

Whereas, the Republican party has blocked legislation that would help struggling black families

Whereas, the Republican party has become the party of choice for racists and white supremacists 

Whereas the Republican party seeks to repeal established programs that black families rely on


----------



## Dragon

Perhaps the accurate way to put it is that neither party is the "real ally" of African-Americans, but that the Republicans are their "real enemies."

Except for rich African-Americans, of course. The Republicans are the "real allies" of the rich, regardless of race.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party*
> 
> (The original piece is an e-mail from the author, Frances Rice, dated June 3, 2004)
> We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
> 
> Whereas in the early 1600&#8217;s 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,
> 
> Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
> 
> Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
> 
> Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
> 
> Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
> 
> Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
> 
> Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
> 
> Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
> 
> Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
> 
> Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party abandoned black causes to embrace southern racists after the Civil Rights act passed
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has blocked legislation that would help struggling black families
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has become the party of choice for racists and white supremacists
> 
> Whereas the Republican party seeks to repeal established programs that black families rely on
Click to expand...


One should provide proof to support *their* claims. Your word alone doesn't do it for me, or anyone else for that matter.... Maybe Jake


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post is accurate.  The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.
Click to expand...


People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party abandoned black causes to embrace southern racists after the Civil Rights act passed
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has blocked legislation that would help struggling black families
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has become the party of choice for racists and white supremacists
> 
> Whereas the Republican party seeks to repeal established programs that black families rely on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One should provide proof to support *their* claims. Your word alone doesn't do it for me, or anyone else for that matter.... Maybe Jake
Click to expand...


As they say.....the proof is in the pudding

When a political party alienates 90% of a demographic voting group, they must be doing something wrong

Oh yea......I forgot......those 90% are "brainwashed"


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party abandoned black causes to embrace southern racists after the Civil Rights act passed
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has blocked legislation that would help struggling black families
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has become the party of choice for racists and white supremacists
> 
> Whereas the Republican party seeks to repeal established programs that black families rely on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One should provide proof to support *their* claims. Your word alone doesn't do it for me, or anyone else for that matter.... Maybe Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As they say.....the proof is in the pudding
> 
> When a political party alienates 90% of a demographic voting group, they must be doing something wrong
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot......those 90% are "brainwashed"
Click to expand...


"Alienates" how so?


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> One should provide proof to support *their* claims. Your word alone doesn't do it for me, or anyone else for that matter.... Maybe Jake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As they say.....the proof is in the pudding
> 
> When a political party alienates 90% of a demographic voting group, they must be doing something wrong
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot......those 90% are "brainwashed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Alienates" how so?
Click to expand...


Alienates as in chases them away

Chases them away by blocking programs such as child care, jobs programs, education subsidies, healthcare which the poor rely on 

Chases them away by tolerating overt racists in their midst


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As they say.....the proof is in the pudding
> 
> When a political party alienates 90% of a demographic voting group, they must be doing something wrong
> 
> Oh yea......I forgot......those 90% are "brainwashed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Alienates" how so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alienates as in chases them away
Click to expand...




> Chases them away by blocking programs such as child care, jobs programs, education subsidies, healthcare which the poor rely on



Dependence on government programs are what has helped to break down the once solid black family. "Education" the dems want blacks stuck in failing public schools, who sides with the Teacher's unions over the kids?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-6FCKhh00&feature=related]Milton Friedman - School Choice - YouTube[/ame]



> Chases them away by tolerating overt racists in their midst



still no examples there are racist everywere genus, but only one party has the destinction of having had the KKK as part of their party.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpezudbbZMA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpezudbbZMA[/ame]


----------



## Mr. President

If a party was the ally of African Americans then it would be a party built on a race agenda hence a racist party which would do nothing but cause more hardships in American society and increase racial tensions.  Find me a man who is for America I will show you a man who is the ally of EVERY American.


----------



## Jroc

Mr. President said:


> *If a party was the ally of African Americans then it would be a party built on a race agenda hence a racist party which would do nothing but cause more hardships in American society and increase racial tensions.*  Find me a man who is for America I will show you a man who is the ally of EVERY American.



I agree, this thread is just history lession for the uninformed. For people who don't know. although your discription best discribes the democrats.


----------



## Mr. President

I see the original intent and have endeavored to uphold the same argument before.  However, if one looks closely at the agenda of the democratic party it merely shifted "the black agenda" to the forefront of its media campaign but has done little to help the black people in America.  In fact they buy the black vote through welfare and promote the black cause so that the black community feels they are being paid and promoted sufficiently.  But let us not forget that the original intent behind freeing of slaves was to cause economic turmoil in the south.  To have Confederate soldiers flee their ranks and return to their farms for fear of slaves uprising. Also it boosted the number of Union soldiers who were lower in numbers at the time. The uprising of slaves also was a tactical advantage seeing as how slaves dug many of the trenches which the confederates used to hold off union soldiers.


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party*
> 
> (The original piece is an e-mail from the author, Frances Rice, dated June 3, 2004)
> We, African American citizens of the United States, declare and assert:
> 
> Whereas in the early 1600s 20 African men and women were landed in Virginia from a Dutch ship as slaves and from that tiny seed grew the poisoned fruit of plantation slavery which shaped the course of American development,
> 
> Whereas reconciliation and healing always begin with an apology and an effort to repay those who have been wronged,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party has never apologized for their horrific atrocities and racist practices committed against African Americans during the past two hundred years, nor for the residual impact that those atrocities and practices and current soft bigotry of low expectations are having on us today,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party fought to expand slavery and, after the Civil War, established Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes and other repressive legislation that were designed to disenfranchise African Americans,
> 
> Whereas the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, and their primary goal was to intimidate and terrorize African American voters, Republicans who moved South to protect African Americans and any other whites who supported them,
> 
> Whereas, according to leading historians (both black and white), the horrific atrocities committed against African Americans during slavery and Reconstruction were financed, sponsored, and promoted by the Democratic Party and their Ku Klux Klan supporters,
> 
> Whereas from 1870 to 1930, in an effort to deny African Americans their civil rights and to keep African Americans from voting Republican, thousands of African Americans were shot, beaten, lynched, mutilated, and burned to death by Ku Klux Klan terrorists from the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic party has used racist demagoguery to deceive African Americans about the history of the Republican Party that: (a) started as the anti-slavery party in 1854, (b) fought to free African Americans from slavery, (c) designed Reconstruction, a ten-year period of unprecedented political power for African Americans, (d) passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting African Americans freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, (e) passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting African Americans protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, (f) passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 granting African Americans protection from the Jim Crow laws, (g) established Affirmative Action programs to help African Americans proper with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan that set the first goals and timetables and his 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act that made Affirmative Action Programs the law of our nation, and (h) never sponsored or launched a program, passed laws, or engaged in practices that resulted in the death of millions of African Americans,
> 
> Whereas Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (a 1954 decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) was a landmark civil rights case that was designed to overturn the racist practices that were established by the Democratic Party,
> 
> Whereas after Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the vote of African Americans, he banned African American newspapers from the military shortly after taking office because he was convinced the newspapers were communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Law, opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and was later criticized by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for ignoring civil rights issues,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President John F. Kennedy authorized the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) to investigate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on suspicion of being a communist,
> 
> Whereas Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, made a 14-hour filibuster speech in the Senate in June 1964 in an unsuccessful effort to block passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and was heralded in April 2004 by Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd as a senator who would have been a great leader during the Civil War,
> 
> Whereas when the 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for vote, Senator Al Gore, Sr. and the rest of the Southern Democrats voted against the bill,
> 
> Whereas in the House of Representatives only 61 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act as compared to 80 percent of Republicans, and in the Senate only 69 percent of the Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to 82 percent of the Republicans,
> 
> Whereas Democratic President Bill Clinton sent troops to Europe to protect the citizens of Bosnia and Kosovo while allowing an estimated 800,000 black Rwandans to be massacred in Africa, vetoed the welfare reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan,
> 
> Whereas Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore created harmful racial division when he falsely claimed that the 2000 presidential election was "stolen" from him and that African Americans in Florida were disenfranchised, even though a second recount of Florida votes by the "Miami Herald" and a consortium of major news organizations confirmed that he lost the election, and a ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission declared that African Americans were not denied the right to vote,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's soft bigotry of low expectations and social promotions have consigned African Americans to economic bondage and created a culture of dependency on government social programs,
> 
> Whereas the Democratic Party's use of deception and fear to block welfare reform, the faith-based initiative and school choice that would help African Americans prosper is consistent with the Democratic Party's heritage of racism that included sanctioning of slavery and kukluxery, a perversion of moral sentiment among leaders of the Democratic Party whose racist legacy bode ill until this generation of African Americans,
> 
> Now, therefore, for the above and other documented atrocities and accumulated wrongs inflicted upon African Americans, we demand a formal written apology and other appropriate remuneration from the leadership of the Democratic party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open Letter from African Americans to the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party abandoned black causes to embrace southern racists after the Civil Rights act passed
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has blocked legislation that would help struggling black families
> 
> Whereas, the Republican party has become the party of choice for racists and white supremacists
> 
> Whereas the Republican party seeks to repeal established programs that black families rely on
Click to expand...


Whereas the Republican party thinks that Black people vote Democratic because they are not intelligent enough to know better.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My post is accurate.  The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much
Click to expand...


Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr. President said:


> I see the original intent and have endeavored to uphold the same argument before.  However, if one looks closely at the agenda of the democratic party it merely shifted "the black agenda" to the forefront of its media campaign but has done little to help the black people in America.  In fact they buy the black vote through welfare and promote the black cause so that the black community feels they are being paid and promoted sufficiently.  But let us not forget that the original intent behind freeing of slaves was to cause economic turmoil in the south.  To have Confederate soldiers flee their ranks and return to their farms for fear of slaves uprising. Also it boosted the number of Union soldiers who were lower in numbers at the time. The uprising of slaves also was a tactical advantage seeing as how slaves dug many of the trenches which the confederates used to hold off union soldiers.



Immaterial, inaccurate, thus easily dismissed.


----------



## Mr. President

Tell me how jake don't tease with me wordplay.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mr. President said:


> Tell me how jake don't tease with me wordplay.



You have not given me anything worthwhile to refute.  Since 1968, the GOP has steadily refused to embrace and develop minority advancement; thus, we are where we are.  Not just black Americans, many minorities will overwhelmingly take BHO over the GOP candidate.  That is the GOP's difficulty.


----------



## Dragon

Mr. President said:


> Tell me how jake don't tease with me wordplay.



I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.

There were many interests behind emancipation. The whole North-South conflict was partly one of competing economic elites, the new industrial/commercial/capitalist elite mostly in the North versus the older planter/slaveowner/quasi-feudal elite almost all in the South. The conflict manifested over tariffs, over government subsidy of industrial development and infrastructure, but most sharply over slavery. The capitalist elite wanted to add slaves to the labor pool so as to increase the labor supply and keep wages low, and this required freeing the slaves from bondage.

At the same time, emancipation as a moral movement should not be discounted. The condemnation of slavery as inhumane and unjustifiable was sincere on the part of many activists, including both sympathetic or religiously-motivated whites such as William Lloyd Garrison and former slaves such as Frederick Douglas.

As for Lincoln's own motivation in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, as I see it he was dealing with several realities touching on slavery.

1) Britain and France were considering entering the war on the side of the Confederacy and forcing a negotiated peace. By changing the war from one over union only to one over slavery, Lincoln made certain that doing this would put Britain and France on the side of slavery, where they certainly did not want to be, and forestalled that diplomatic disaster.

2) Neither Lincoln as president, nor Congress, had the constitutional authority to end slavery in any territory not in rebellion. Lincoln could not free the slaves in Maryland, for example. To finally bring slavery to an end required a constitutional amendment. Lincoln did have the authority however to free the slaves in rebellious territories as an emergency measure, part of putting down the rebellion. Hence the limitations on the Proclamation.

3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.

4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln's only support of slavery was that the principle was in the Constitution and that he would support it constitutionally.  No one worries about the GOP and slavery or the great support the GOP came the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and 1965.

The problem is that since 1968 the GOP retrogressed as it allowed people, unrepentant of their evil ways, such as Strom Thurmond, to join the party.  Folks like Richard Byrd spent decades trying to atone.  Show me where in the GOP such folks have done the same.


----------



## Mr. President

Dragon said:


> I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.



Yes this was my point.



Dragon said:


> There were many interests behind emancipation. The whole North-South conflict was partly one of competing economic elites, the new industrial/commercial/capitalist elite mostly in the North versus the older planter/slaveowner/quasi-feudal elite almost all in the South. The conflict manifested over tariffs, over government subsidy of industrial development and infrastructure, but most sharply over slavery. The capitalist elite wanted to add slaves to the labor pool so as to increase the labor supply and keep wages low, and this required freeing the slaves from bondage.



Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South.  It does not disprove anything I said only adds to it.



Dragon said:


> At the same time, emancipation as a moral movement should not be discounted. The condemnation of slavery as inhumane and unjustifiable was sincere on the part of many activists, including both sympathetic or religiously-motivated whites such as William Lloyd Garrison and former slaves such as Frederick Douglas.



Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war.  So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality.  If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages. 



Dragon said:


> As for Lincoln's own motivation in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, as I see it he was dealing with several realities touching on slavery.
> 
> 1) Britain and France were considering entering the war on the side of the Confederacy and forcing a negotiated peace. By changing the war from one over union only to one over slavery, Lincoln made certain that doing this would put Britain and France on the side of slavery, where they certainly did not want to be, and forestalled that diplomatic disaster.



A mere advantage seeing as how both France and England needed the grain provided by the North.  Who were producing it at a remarkable rate due to advancements in technology.  The British people ie. the working class actually supported the North.  While that itself may not have kept Britain from war the two Russian fleets that spent the winter in American Harbors also stiffled any talk of active engagement by British or French Military.   



Dragon said:


> 2) Neither Lincoln as president, nor Congress, had the constitutional authority to end slavery in any territory not in rebellion. Lincoln could not free the slaves in Maryland, for example. To finally bring slavery to an end required a constitutional amendment. Lincoln did have the authority however to free the slaves in rebellious territories as an emergency measure, part of putting down the rebellion. Hence the limitations on the Proclamation.



Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy.  Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.



Dragon said:


> 3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.



It did meet a Union need for manpower.  The numbers of confederates did not include those slaves which were digging ditches and subsequently running the farms while their masters were at war.  In the North the men who left their businesses were not supplemented by a supply of slavery as abundantly as in the South.  Hence the need for manpower was to ensure war fighters existed and warring northerners could tend to the economic business at hand.



Dragon said:


> 4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.



I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery.  But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.


----------



## Dragon

Mr. President said:


> Yes this was my point.



Not much of a point, frankly. It's not in dispute that, prior to 1964, the Republicans were the civil rights party. What's in dispute is whether they still are.



> Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South.



It proves nothing of the sort. You are treating the position on slavery in the Union as a monolith, when it was not. The motive I stated existed only among the capitalists, and I suspect few of them were quite so bloodless and calculating as to make that their only motive for ending something as inhumane as slavery. Say rather, they had no economic incentive to retain the institution (just the opposite), and so the _natural_ opposition to it on the part of any human being with a conscience was not overridden, as it was for the planter elite, by economic interests.

Besides the capitalists, there were northerners who sincerely wanted to end slavery for moral reasons, and other northerners who couldn't be bothered about it one way or another, and even some citizens of the Union, mostly in the border states, who wanted to keep it in force.



> Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war.  So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality.  If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages.



You seem to be getting a bit confused about the Union's (as opposed to the Confederacy's) motivations for the war. The Confederate states seceded in order to protect slavery, and fought the war for the same reason, but the Union initially fought the war only to reverse the secession and preserve the Union intact. As Lincoln put it, if he could restore the Union by freeing all the slaves, by freeing none of them, or by freeing some and leaving others alone, he would do any of those. (In the end, the third approach served his purpose best.)

As for "equality," for most white people, north and south alike, that wasn't even on the radar yet, which is why, despite the 14th Amendment, it was not enacted into law at that time. There was not a sufficient constituency for it. 



> Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy.  Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.



That slavery was legal in the Union longer than in the Confederacy is untrue. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation freed many slaves eventually, it did not make slavery illegal anywhere. It was a one-time emancipation, a punitive measure aimed at slave-owners in rebellion, depriving them of their property. There was nothing at law preventing the slave-owners who had lost their slaves due to the Proclamation from buying more, if they had the money to do so. Only the 13th Amendment ended slavery, and it did so throughout all parts of the country where slavery was still legal, which included the entire former Confederacy as well as several Union states.



> It did meet a Union need for manpower.



Let's take a look at that.

Throughout the course of the war, about two million men fought for the Union. Of those, 180,000 (approximately) were black, or less than ten percent of the total. The number of Confederate soldiers is uncertain, but is almost certainly less than a million men throughout the course of the war.

Most of the black soldiers were not employed in combat functions, partly because of racism on the part of white Union officers, partly because the Confederates tended to kill blacks who surrendered. There were of course notable exceptions like the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.

The Emancipation Proclamation actually caused a net reduction in volunteers for the U.S. Army. The Irish immigrants in particular, who had volunteered in large numbers before, viewed blacks as a threat to their jobs, much the way working-class whites today often view Hispanic immigrants. So to the extent the Proclamation remedied a manpower shortage, it remedied a shortage that it had itself created.

Regarding the manpower differences between North and South, note that the Union had more than a 2-to-1 advantage in total population COUNTING the Southern slaves. (19 million compared to 9 million.)



> I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery.  But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.



You are presenting a false dilemma here. Those were not the only two motives, as Lincoln's own example testifies. It's clear that he did not believe in racial equality, but equally clear that he opposed slavery as a moral matter, because it was wrong to enslave even "racial inferiors." Among those who opposed the institution, that was probably the prevailing sentiment (although we may safely assume that black emancipationists didn't share it, I believe).


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of which answers why the GOP has failed since the election of 1968 when it comes to minorities.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Perhaps the *accurate* way to put it is that neither party is the "real ally" of African-Americans, but that the Republicans are their "real enemies."


You misspelled "bullshit".


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP is not the 21st century champion of minorities.  End of debate until it changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jake for that "useful" post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post is accurate.  The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.
Click to expand...

How do you define "useful"?  

Because Democrats' vote-buying schemes have done far more damage to minorities than they've helped.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> My post is accurate.  The GOP has offered nothing useful to minorities (other than Reagan's amnesty) since 1968.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.
Click to expand...


See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"


----------



## Salt Jones

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"[/QUOTE
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
Click to expand...


----------



## Jroc

Salt Jones said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
Click to expand...


Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able


----------



## Brutus

Jroc said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able
Click to expand...


Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1791. Jefferson stood for freedom from big liberal govt. Modern Republicans are identical. Liberals have no place in America.


----------



## Mr. President

Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash


----------



## NoNukes

Dragon said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me how jake don't tease with me wordplay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.
> 
> There were many interests behind emancipation. The whole North-South conflict was partly one of competing economic elites, the new industrial/commercial/capitalist elite mostly in the North versus the older planter/slaveowner/quasi-feudal elite almost all in the South. The conflict manifested over tariffs, over government subsidy of industrial development and infrastructure, but most sharply over slavery. The capitalist elite wanted to add slaves to the labor pool so as to increase the labor supply and keep wages low, and this required freeing the slaves from bondage.
> 
> At the same time, emancipation as a moral movement should not be discounted. The condemnation of slavery as inhumane and unjustifiable was sincere on the part of many activists, including both sympathetic or religiously-motivated whites such as William Lloyd Garrison and former slaves such as Frederick Douglas.
> 
> As for Lincoln's own motivation in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, as I see it he was dealing with several realities touching on slavery.
> 
> 1) Britain and France were considering entering the war on the side of the Confederacy and forcing a negotiated peace. By changing the war from one over union only to one over slavery, Lincoln made certain that doing this would put Britain and France on the side of slavery, where they certainly did not want to be, and forestalled that diplomatic disaster.
> 
> 2) Neither Lincoln as president, nor Congress, had the constitutional authority to end slavery in any territory not in rebellion. Lincoln could not free the slaves in Maryland, for example. To finally bring slavery to an end required a constitutional amendment. Lincoln did have the authority however to free the slaves in rebellious territories as an emergency measure, part of putting down the rebellion. Hence the limitations on the Proclamation.
> 
> 3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.
> 
> 4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.
Click to expand...


This is known as history, and it is not the Republican party of today.


----------



## NoNukes

Mr. President said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you how, but first I want to mention that the party behind freeing the slaves was the Republicans not the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes this was my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, this only proves my point that the freeing of slaves was intended to cause economic turmoil in the South.  It does not disprove anything I said only adds to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the sincerity of activists could not fund and promote an all out war.  So while the intentions of some were true to the cause the intent of the powers that be was not that of equality.  If that were the case then they wouldn't have wanted the slaves freed in order to provide a workforce that would accept the current wages.
> 
> 
> 
> A mere advantage seeing as how both France and England needed the grain provided by the North.  Who were producing it at a remarkable rate due to advancements in technology.  The British people ie. the working class actually supported the North.  While that itself may not have kept Britain from war the two Russian fleets that spent the winter in American Harbors also stiffled any talk of active engagement by British or French Military.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite correct and from this one would note that the slavery was legal in the union longer than it was legal in the confederacy.  Thus proving again the war was not over the freeing of slaves but that freedom was a gift from the war machine.
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The Proclamation did not meet a Union need for manpower as you suggested; the Union compared to the Confederacy already had abundant manpower, and anyway slaves were already fleeing to the Union lines and volunteering for service in the U.S. Army. The Proclamation did little to accelerate that, until so much territory had been reconquered that the was was effectively over anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did meet a Union need for manpower.  The numbers of confederates did not include those slaves which were digging ditches and subsequently running the farms while their masters were at war.  In the North the men who left their businesses were not supplemented by a supply of slavery as abundantly as in the South.  Hence the need for manpower was to ensure war fighters existed and warring northerners could tend to the economic business at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) While Lincoln's commitment to racial equality was poor to nonexistent, his opposition to slavery was genuine, as we can tell from everything he said on the subject both before and after becoming president. There is no example that I can find of any speech or statement by Lincoln supporting slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not saying Lincoln was pro slavery.  But the anti slavery sentiment among the party was enhanced by its benefits to the war effort not by their feelings that slaves were equals too.
Click to expand...


Lincoln said in a speech that he did not believe that Blacks were equal to Whites.


----------



## NoNukes

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who support individual liberty are the Champians of all people Jake. Real conservative Republicans stand for liberty. Dems ...not so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical liberals, Dems and Pubs, stand for liberty and freedom, Jroc: not one else, not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"
Click to expand...


Every non white on the thread has said that it is incorrect. Guess you are waiting for someone white.


----------



## NoNukes

Brutus said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1791. Jefferson stood for freedom from big liberal govt. Modern Republicans are identical. Liberals have no place in America.
Click to expand...


Jefferson was a liberal.


----------



## Jroc

Mr. President said:


> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash



There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> far to the left liberals are running the country



With this statement, you have demonstrated you wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if one bit you on the ass.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> far to the left liberals are running the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this statement, you have demonstrated you wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if one bit you on the ass.
Click to expand...


Big government leftist, you can play with semantics all you want, we know what liberals are as defined today. Start a thread on it if you like.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Big government leftist



I knew what you meant. To say that leftists are running the government is nonsense.


----------



## NoNukes

Jroc said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
Click to expand...


If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?


----------



## NoNukes

Jroc said:


> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
Click to expand...


A Black man's opinion on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?
Click to expand...

Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Black man's opinion on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.
Click to expand...


...unless the black man is a conservative, of course.


----------



## Jroc

NoNukes said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. President said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals are here to balance the conservatives haha without either one this United States would be trash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Black man's *opinion* on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.
Click to expand...


This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts



LOL well, by some facts, anyway. You don't seem to want to consider any facts from later than the 1960s.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, by some facts, anyway. You don't seem to want to consider any facts from later than the 1960s.
Click to expand...


Present them and I'll consider them.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, by some facts, anyway. You don't seem to want to consider any facts from later than the 1960s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Present them and I'll consider them.
Click to expand...


I did, and you didn't.

Hey, do you think the Democrats could appeal to the white racist voters by pointing out that, 60 or 70 years ago, the party USED TO represent their bigoted interests?

That makes as much sense, and is based on as much truth, as you're presenting here.


----------



## Salt Jones

Jroc said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference here Jake? These guys actually discuss, you make stupid statements and move on. I don't know what you're talking about and your posts are absolutely worthless. As of yet no one has disproved the topic of this thread  "Republicans..The real allies of* African Americans*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able
Click to expand...


Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?
Click to expand...


They should not, that is the point.


----------



## NoNukes

Jroc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Black man's *opinion* on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts
Click to expand...


Black people do not see the Republican Party as their party, and most do not think the Republicans are sympathetic to Blacks. Do you deny this?


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, by some facts, anyway. You don't seem to want to consider any facts from later than the 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Present them and I'll consider them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, and you didn't.
> 
> Hey, do you think the Democrats could appeal to the white racist voters by pointing out that, 60 or 70 years ago, the party USED TO represent their bigoted interests?
> 
> That makes as much sense, and is based on as much truth, as you're presenting here.
Click to expand...


 It might help for you to point out how dems actually help African Americans today, I don't think you have. Has far as the history, they don't teach these things in government run, failing, inner city public schools. You know the schools the dems like to keep poor people black and white confined to.


----------



## Mr. President

> Not much of a point, frankly. It's not in dispute that, prior to 1964, the Republicans were the civil rights party. What's in dispute is whether they still are.



Indeed however my point was that even when the republican party was viewed as the civil rights party it was for the advancement of different agendas and equality was not at the forefront of the decision making process.



> It proves nothing of the sort. You are treating the position on slavery in the Union as a monolith, when it was not. The motive I stated existed only among the capitalists, and I suspect few of them were quite so bloodless and calculating as to make that their only motive for ending something as inhumane as slavery. Say rather, they had no economic incentive to retain the institution (just the opposite), and so the _natural_ opposition to it on the part of any human being with a conscience was not overridden, as it was for the planter elite, by economic interests.



Your point while duly noted must meet with the contingency that slavery had not been challenged on a national scale until the war was in full swing. If this moral reasoning was the republicans war cry why friend had this war cry not been heard until a shift in the war was needed or the Union forces faced defeat?




> You seem to be getting a bit confused about the Union's (as opposed to the Confederacy's) motivations for the war. The Confederate states seceded in order to protect slavery, and fought the war for the same reason, but the Union initially fought the war only to reverse the secession and preserve the Union intact. As Lincoln put it, if he could restore the Union by freeing all the slaves, by freeing none of them, or by freeing some and leaving others alone, he would do any of those. (In the end, the third approach served his purpose best.)



Precisely my point.  Slavery was merely a political pawn to be maneuvered in order to bring the confederates in check.  If the Confederates would have complied to stay with the union as long as slavery was allowed then the emancipation proclamation would have never been written.



> As for "equality," for most white people, north and south alike, that wasn't even on the radar yet, which is why, despite the 14th Amendment, it was not enacted into law at that time. There was not a sufficient constituency for it.



When you are right you are right.



> That slavery was legal in the Union longer than in the Confederacy is untrue. Even though the Emancipation Proclamation freed many slaves eventually, it did not make slavery illegal anywhere. It was a one-time emancipation, a punitive measure aimed at slave-owners in rebellion, depriving them of their property. There was nothing at law preventing the slave-owners who had lost their slaves due to the Proclamation from buying more, if they had the money to do so. Only the 13th Amendment ended slavery, and it did so throughout all parts of the country where slavery was still legal, which included the entire former Confederacy as well as several Union states.



"And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

Slavery was illegal because as soon as you bought a "slave" they were freed in accordance with the proclamation.



> Let's take a look at that.
> 
> Throughout the course of the war, about two million men fought for the Union. Of those, 180,000 (approximately) were black, or less than ten percent of the total. The number of Confederate soldiers is uncertain, but is almost certainly less than a million men throughout the course of the war.
> 
> Most of the black soldiers were not employed in combat functions, partly because of racism on the part of white Union officers, partly because the Confederates tended to kill blacks who surrendered. There were of course notable exceptions like the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation actually caused a net reduction in volunteers for the U.S. Army. The Irish immigrants in particular, who had volunteered in large numbers before, viewed blacks as a threat to their jobs, much the way working-class whites today often view Hispanic immigrants. So to the extent the Proclamation remedied a manpower shortage, it remedied a shortage that it had itself created.
> 
> Regarding the manpower differences between North and South, note that the Union had more than a 2-to-1 advantage in total population COUNTING the Southern slaves. (19 million compared to 9 million.)
> 
> You are presenting a false dilemma here. Those were not the only two motives, as Lincoln's own example testifies. It's clear that he did not believe in racial equality, but equally clear that he opposed slavery as a moral matter, because it was wrong to enslave even "racial inferiors." Among those who opposed the institution, that was probably the prevailing sentiment (although we may safely assume that black emancipationists didn't share it, I believe).



As far as what you are mentioning above I have to ask you what your sources are for these numbers.  I have on several attempts looked to find these numbers and I have not been able to look them up.  If you can provide that source I would gladly look at it and voice a rebuttal if one is found fit.


----------



## Jroc

Salt Jones said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...I believe what the topic says, disprove it if you're able
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the Republican Party of 1864 is the same as the Republican Party of 2011?
Click to expand...


Nothing is exactly the same as it was 150yrs ago but liberty is still liberty, big government means less individule liberty.


----------



## Mr. President

I am still trying to figure out how "most blacks vote for democrats".  I mean statistically speaking most blacks don't vote at all.  My dad is black born and raised in South Carolina.  A white girl thought he was cute when they were kids and when her father found out the KKK called my dads house and threatened to kill the whole family if my dad so much as looked at her.  My dad has been and will be a republican. I have been and will be a republican.  Maybe the issue here is that the loud black people are democrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Black man's *opinion* on this counts a hell of a lot more than yours. Especially for someone who lives in the state with the highest membership in the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not an opinion thread this is an historical thread backed up by facts
Click to expand...


You have no facts after 1968, thus you fail.

Today is almost 2012.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should not, that is the point.
Click to expand...

And yet they do.  In this very thread.

And you chose not to castigate them for it.


----------



## daveman

I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.


----------



## Dragon

Mr. P, I'm going to skip over most of your post because our discussion of the Civil War and emancipation is off-topic, but I do want to deal with one thing just as a matter of historical accuracy.



Mr. President said:


> "And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."
> 
> Slavery was illegal because as soon as you bought a "slave" they were freed in accordance with the proclamation.



No. The language you quoted applied only to those held in slavery AT THAT TIME. It declared that all such persons "are, and henceforward shall be free." That means that, if you were a slave in a part of the Confederacy still unconquered at the time the Proclamation was issued, and subsequently the Union troops came through, YOU were free, and could not be re-enslaved. Your former owner was SOL as far as you were concerned. But the Proclamation didn't apply to slaves held in, say, Kentucky (a Union state) or New Orleans (a part of the Confederacy taken by the U.S. Navy before the Proclamation was issued), and there was nothing to stop your former owner from going off and buying a slave from one of those places if one was for sale and he had the U.S. currency to do it.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.



A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.
Click to expand...

Because I can perceive reality.  Try it sometime.


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no balance as of late, far to the left liberals are running the country and fake as conservative Republicans are helping them. Real conservatives do not have the power *yet* to push the country back more to the right.And the fact still remains that Republicans are traditionally the party of African Americans and the dems have and continue to hurt them. In this whole thread no one as disproven that fact, most like Jake wont even try, they'll just make stupid statements and decrees .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?
Click to expand...


Who are white conservatives to speak for black Americans?


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I can perceive reality.  Try it sometime.
Click to expand...


Blacks don't have free will? The only people "keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government" are the individual black people themselves.


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Republican Party is traditionally the party of African Americans, why do most of them vote Democrat, and who are you to speak for African Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are white conservatives to speak for black Americans?
Click to expand...


You've said you don't like white liberals speaking for blacks.

But you don't seem to mind it in this thread.


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can perceive reality.  Try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have free will? The only people "keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government" are the individual black people themselves.
Click to expand...

I suppose they do, if they keep voting Democrat.


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can perceive reality.  Try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have free will? The only people "keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government" are the individual black people themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose they do, if they keep voting Democrat.
Click to expand...


Voting or not voting has no bearing on this issue. Rap music, reality shows and the "pimping"/thug life mindset is more influential than voting.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I can perceive reality.
Click to expand...


You don't seem very good at describing the reality you supposedly perceive, though.

If any Democrat stated that it was his/her intent to keep blacks poor, uneducated, and dependent on government I missed it. When was this stated, and by whom? Seems to me that Democrats have done more than Republicans to promote opportunities for education for low-income and minority people, so there goes that one. They've also done more to promote job opportunities, so there goes that one. That leaves the dependent on government part. I guess when one party throws a lifeline while the other leaves people to drown, you could argue that the one throwing the lifeline is doing more to keep the person on a string, but frankly that argument, while valid, isn't terribly convincing.

Which is probably why blacks haven't been convinced by it.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> If any Democrat stated that it was his/her intent to keep blacks poor, uneducated, and dependent on government I missed it. When was this stated, and by whom?



Doesn't matter the intent, what matters is the results. The results speak for themselves. 



> Seems to me that Democrats have done more than Republicans to promote opportunities for education for low-income and minority people, so there goes that one. They've also done more to promote job opportunities, so there goes that one.



Again results.... Since this thread is on African Americans lets stick to them in Detroit were I'm from. We have a 70% dropout rate, 75% out of wedlock birth, rate highest abortion rate of any other people. How do you explain that? big government policies have not helped blacks over all, there may be some policies here and there, but overall liberal policies have helped to destroyed the black family, made victims of them and their` so-called "civil rights leaders" have benefited financially from keeping black Americans victims


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=autoplay&list=PL54937ADFA92C27B7&lf=results_main&playnext=2]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OIBOSJTwg&feature=related]John Stossel - The State Against Blacks - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Doesn't matter the intent, what matters is the results. The results speak for themselves.



The problem with that is correctly attributing the "results." So far, I've seen nothing to demonstrate a causal connection between programs favored by Democrats and poverty. The fact that you can, if you make certain (quite dubious) assumptions, assert a plausible connection is not proof.

Obviously, most black voters disagree with you, and perhaps that's understandable. If your claim to be "the real ally of African-Americans" amounts to saying, "everything that's wrong in your life is your own fault, and we're going to address it by doing nothing to help you so you'll be forced to do it all yourself, because you always could and you're just a lazy loafer," it's predictable that that's not going to go over too well.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are white liberals to speak for African-Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should not, that is the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet they do.  In this very thread.
> 
> And you chose not to castigate them for it.
Click to expand...


How do you know what race everyone is? What is my race?


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.



You are wondering because it is not true. You are one of these 'Black people are not intelligent enough to know who helps them' conservatives.


----------



## NoNukes

Mr. President said:


> I am still trying to figure out how "most blacks vote for democrats".  I mean statistically speaking most blacks don't vote at all.  My dad is black born and raised in South Carolina.  A white girl thought he was cute when they were kids and when her father found out the KKK called my dads house and threatened to kill the whole family if my dad so much as looked at her.  My dad has been and will be a republican. I have been and will be a republican.  Maybe the issue here is that the loud black people are democrats.



Perhaps it is because things have changed since then.


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have free will? The only people "keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government" are the individual black people themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose they do, if they keep voting Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Voting or not voting has no bearing on this issue. Rap music, reality shows and the "pimping"/thug life mindset is more influential than voting.
Click to expand...

Really?  Democrats' continual vote-buying schemes and fear-mongering have little effect?

Reality suggests otherwise.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> A better question is why you think that's a Democratic policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can perceive reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem very good at describing the reality you supposedly perceive, though.
> 
> If any Democrat stated that it was his/her intent to keep blacks poor, uneducated, and dependent on government I missed it. When was this stated, and by whom? Seems to me that Democrats have done more than Republicans to promote opportunities for education for low-income and minority people, so there goes that one. They've also done more to promote job opportunities, so there goes that one. That leaves the dependent on government part. I guess when one party throws a lifeline while the other leaves people to drown, you could argue that the one throwing the lifeline is doing more to keep the person on a string, but frankly that argument, while valid, isn't terribly convincing.
> 
> Which is probably why blacks haven't been convinced by it.
Click to expand...

You really think...sorry, wrong word...you really feel that any Democrat is going to come right out and say he intends to keep blacks poor, uneducated, and dependent on government?  

That's your problem.  You pay too much attention to what politicians say and not enough to what they do.  

And Democrat policies have kept blacks poor, uneducated, and dependent on government.

That's some of that reality stuff you seem to have trouble with.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter the intent, what matters is the results. The results speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is correctly attributing the "results." So far, I've seen nothing to demonstrate a causal connection between programs favored by Democrats and poverty. The fact that you can, if you make certain (quite dubious) assumptions, assert a plausible connection is not proof.
> 
> Obviously, most black voters disagree with you, and perhaps that's understandable. If your claim to be "the real ally of African-Americans" amounts to saying, "everything that's wrong in your life is your own fault, and we're going to address it by doing nothing to help you so you'll be forced to do it all yourself, because you always could and you're just a lazy loafer," it's predictable that that's not going to go over too well.
Click to expand...

Then you admit Democrats are saying, "Everything that's wrong in your life is NOT your fault, and we're going to take money away from other people and give it to you because you're not capable of improving your life on your own."

Yeah.  That's real compassionate.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should not, that is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they do.  In this very thread.
> 
> And you chose not to castigate them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what race everyone is?
Click to expand...

I don't know everyone's race.  I do know most of the liberals in this thread claiming to speak for blacks are indeed white.


NoNukes said:


> What is my race?


I don't know.  Nor do I care.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wondering because it is not true. You are one of these 'Black people are not intelligent enough to know who helps them' conservatives.
Click to expand...

No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.

Thanks for letting me clear that up.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> The problem with that is correctly attributing the "results." So far, I've seen nothing to demonstrate a causal connection between *programs favored by Democrats and poverty *The fact that you can, if you make certain (quite dubious) assumptions, assert a plausible connection is not proof.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related]Responsibility to the Poor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Does anyone have the social and economic indicators for black Americans in 1964 and 1988 and 2010?

Since the GOP has been absent since then in proactively working to improve black America, the figures will show whether the Democratic programs have helped, hindered, or not affected black America.


----------



## Dragon

A video expressing people's opinions is in no sense evidence that those opinions are correct.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet they do.  In this very thread.
> 
> And you chose not to castigate them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what race everyone is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know everyone's race.  I do know most of the liberals in this thread claiming to speak for blacks are indeed white.
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is my race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know.  Nor do I care.
Click to expand...


Remain ignorant. If you do not know people's race, then you do not know that most liberals claiming to speak for Blacks are White.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still wondering why the Democrat policies of keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on government is considered helping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wondering because it is not true. You are one of these 'Black people are not intelligent enough to know who helps them' conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for letting me clear that up.
Click to expand...


Having stood in their way for so long.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Then you admit Democrats are saying, "Everything that's wrong in your life is NOT your fault"



Depends on exactly what that means. If it means "Not everything that's wrong in your life IS your fault," then yes. If it means, "NOTHING that's wrong in your life is your fault," then no.



> and we're going to take money away from other people and give it to you *because you're not capable of improving your life on your own*."
> 
> Yeah.  That's real compassionate.



Replace the part in bold with "because it's not fair to expect you and your children to starve while you're trying" and you'll have it right.

Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime.

But give him the fish while he's learning, or his lifetime will only BE a day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I will post this again.  Until the OP can meet this test, it fails.

Does anyone have the social and economic indicators for black Americans in 1964 and 1988 and 2010?

Since the GOP has been absent since then in proactively working to improve black America, the figures will show whether the Democratic programs have helped, hindered, or not affected black America.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> I will post this again.  Until the OP can meet this test, it fails.
> 
> Does anyone have the social and economic indicators for black Americans in 1964 and 1988 and 2010?
> 
> Since the GOP has been absent since then in proactively working to improve black America, the figures will show whether the Democratic programs have helped, hindered, or not affected black America.



 A far comparison would be from the "Great Society" on. Do you have the numbers? The whole thing has been miserable failure. Do you want people to do your work for you? Maybe it's time you actually contribute something of substance to this thread since you have yet to do so. Do you deny that these big government programs have been a failure for the most part, and we are all worst off for them? Do you deny that the black family is in worst shape than it has ever been? And do you deny that liberal policies have played a big part in that? 

For some reason you seem to have no concept of what goes on in poor inner city communities. Well I do, Ive seen it up close, and Ive lived it, you? I doubt. Trillions and trillions spent yet look at the results, look at Detroit. There are plenty of good people there but they get sucked into government dependency because thats all they know.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know what race everyone is?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know everyone's race.  I do know most of the liberals in this thread claiming to speak for blacks are indeed white.
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is my race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know.  Nor do I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remain ignorant. If you do not know people's race, then you do not know that most liberals claiming to speak for Blacks are White.
Click to expand...

Pssst!  Most people in the US are white.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wondering because it is not true. You are one of these 'Black people are not intelligent enough to know who helps them' conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for letting me clear that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having stood in their way for so long.
Click to expand...

Repeating vapid leftist myths is not a sign of intelligence.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you admit Democrats are saying, "Everything that's wrong in your life is NOT your fault"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what that means. If it means "Not everything that's wrong in your life IS your fault," then yes. If it means, "NOTHING that's wrong in your life is your fault," then no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and we're going to take money away from other people and give it to you *because you're not capable of improving your life on your own*."
> 
> Yeah.  That's real compassionate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace the part in bold with "because it's not fair to expect you and your children to starve while you're trying" and you'll have it right.
> 
> Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime.
> 
> But give him the fish while he's learning, or his lifetime will only BE a day.
Click to expand...

The left wants to give a man a government fish every day for the rest of his life.

This is undeniable.  You, kollektively, want to keep as many people as possible dependent on government in exchange for votes.


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose they do, if they keep voting Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voting or not voting has no bearing on this issue. Rap music, reality shows and the "pimping"/thug life mindset is more influential than voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Democrats' continual vote-buying schemes and fear-mongering have little effect?
> 
> Reality suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...


Fear of who?

How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood? I ask because I'm trying to suss out your bona fides on the black community.


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voting or not voting has no bearing on this issue. Rap music, reality shows and the "pimping"/thug life mindset is more influential than voting.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Democrats' continual vote-buying schemes and fear-mongering have little effect?
> 
> Reality suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear of who?
Click to expand...

The left is continually trying to get people to be afraid of conservatives.  If you deny this, you deny reality.

But then, you do that quite often.


Salt Jones said:


> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood? I ask because I'm trying to suss out your bona fides on the black community.


And yet you have failed to ask those questions of white liberals in this thread.

You know what I think is best for the black community?

The same things that are best for _every_ community.  Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed.

How racist of me!


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Democrats' continual vote-buying schemes and fear-mongering have little effect?
> 
> Reality suggests otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear of who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is continually trying to get people to be afraid of conservatives.  If you deny this, you deny reality.
> 
> But then, you do that quite often.
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood? I ask because I'm trying to suss out your bona fides on the black community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you have failed to ask those questions of white liberals in this thread.
> 
> You know what I think is best for the black community?
> 
> The same things that are best for _every_ community.  Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed.
> 
> How racist of me!
Click to expand...


How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood?


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear of who?
> 
> 
> 
> The left is continually trying to get people to be afraid of conservatives.  If you deny this, you deny reality.
> 
> But then, you do that quite often.
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood? I ask because I'm trying to suss out your bona fides on the black community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you have failed to ask those questions of white liberals in this thread.
> 
> You know what I think is best for the black community?
> 
> The same things that are best for _every_ community.  Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed.
> 
> How racist of me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood?
Click to expand...

I'll answer those questions when you ask them of white liberals.

Do you disagree with what I want for the black community?


----------



## Dr Grump

Jroc said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your party stopped targeting black voters to keep them from voting then you might have a better chance at convincing them you think they are important
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're party stoppped pushing the killing of Black babies, We'd have plenty more African Americans to vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?
> 
> BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community
Click to expand...


misleading..how can something that is not even alive yet be considered a death.

As for 'pushing' them, nobody pushes anyone. They make up their own minds..

As for the op-ed, pity the Repub party of 1854 is not the repub party of 2011...


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left is continually trying to get people to be afraid of conservatives.  If you deny this, you deny reality.
> 
> But then, you do that quite often.
> 
> And yet you have failed to ask those questions of white liberals in this thread.
> 
> You know what I think is best for the black community?
> 
> The same things that are best for _every_ community.  Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed.
> 
> How racist of me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll answer those questions when you ask them of white liberals.
> 
> Do you disagree with what I want for the black community?
Click to expand...


Sure you will. 99% of white liberals would answer no, the same as you. 

Blacks have "Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed", if they make an individual choice to forgo them then they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## daveman

Salt Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many black people are in your immediate family? How many in your extended family? Did you grow up in a black neighborhood?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer those questions when you ask them of white liberals.
> 
> Do you disagree with what I want for the black community?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you will. 99% of white liberals would answer no, the same as you.
Click to expand...

If you already know the answer, why ask the question?


Salt Jones said:


> Blacks have "Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed", if they make an individual choice to forgo them then they only have themselves to blame.


Then why do you support Democrats, who don't want those things for blacks?


----------



## Salt Jones

daveman said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll answer those questions when you ask them of white liberals.
> 
> Do you disagree with what I want for the black community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you will. 99% of white liberals would answer no, the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you already know the answer, why ask the question?
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks have "Individual freedom, personal responsibility, opportunity to succeed", if they make an individual choice to forgo them then they only have themselves to blame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you support Democrats, who don't want those things for blacks?
Click to expand...


Because republicans cater to rush, hannity, newt et al and neither politician party can stop an individual who is determined to succeed from succeeding. Millions of black Americans born into poverty have succeeded regardless of any political parties policies. If one can do it, all can do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will post this again.  Until the OP can meet this test, it fails.
> 
> Does anyone have the social and economic indicators for black Americans in 1964 and 1988 and 2010?
> 
> Since the GOP has been absent since then in proactively working to improve black America, the figures will show whether the Democratic programs have helped, hindered, or not affected black America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A far comparison would be from the "Great Society" on. Do you have the numbers?   *SNIP*.
Click to expand...


JROC, 1964 on includes the Great Society.  You are the one who has to provide the numbers for the OP.  If you can't, you fail.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.
> 
> Thanks for letting me clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having stood in their way for so long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating vapid leftist myths is not a sign of intelligence.
Click to expand...


neither is your being stupid. Blacks know the truth, so do I.


----------



## Warrior102

Truthmatters said:


> so you think only black women have abortions?



Shut your racist piehole, idiot.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know everyone's race.  I do know most of the liberals in this thread claiming to speak for blacks are indeed white.
> 
> I don't know.  Nor do I care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remain ignorant. If you do not know people's race, then you do not know that most liberals claiming to speak for Blacks are White.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pssst!  Most people in the US are white.
Click to expand...


So, you are saying that everyone on this board is White? Afraid not. 

This is why I promised myself that I would quit arguing with stupid people.


----------



## Jroc

> *Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats*
> 
> SEATTLE, WA -- On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 - 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as &#8220;Father of Racism,&#8221; allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.
> 
> 
> 
> The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.
> 
> 
> 
> Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father.  In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages


.

Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats - Move-On-Up.org


----------



## daveman

Jroc said:


> *Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats*
> 
> SEATTLE, WA -- On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 - 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as Father of Racism, allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.
> 
> 
> 
> The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.
> 
> 
> 
> Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father.  In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats - Move-On-Up.org
Click to expand...

Democrat apologize for their racism?

Never happen.


----------



## Jroc

daveman said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats*
> 
> SEATTLE, WA -- On September 11, 2011, blacks from the West Coast and the East Coast joined together and signed one of the most comprehensive legal briefs ever prepared on racial discrimination, then filed their brief today, September 12th, at 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time in US District Court in Seattle (Case No. C11 - 1503). The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as Father of Racism, allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011. Rev. Wayne Perryman, a former Democrat himself and the lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, said he was inspired to file this action after seeing the recent movie The Help. The movie takes place in the region that was exclusively controlled by Democrats for more than 150 years (the South). Mrs. Frances P. Rice, the Chair of the National Black Republican Association is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Mrs. Rice is a resident of Sarasota, Florida and has lived in the the South most of her life.
> 
> 
> 
> The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation's top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat's National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.
> 
> 
> 
> Perryman said President Obama was named as a defendant not only because he is the official leader of the Democratic Party, but because of certain statements he made about his own party in his book, Dreams from My Father.  In 2009, the President was asked to issue an apology to blacks on behalf of his party, but he refused. Unlike other reparations lawsuits, this lawsuit merely asks for a public apology but no monetary damages
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats - Move-On-Up.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrat apologize for their racism?
> 
> Never happen.
Click to expand...


Over 100 yrs of the Democrat Party's war against African Americans should be worth something.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will post this again.  Until the OP can meet this test, it fails.
> 
> Does anyone have the social and economic indicators for black Americans in 1964 and 1988 and 2010?
> 
> Since the GOP has been absent since then in proactively working to improve black America, the figures will show whether the Democratic programs have helped, hindered, or not affected black America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A far comparison would be from the "Great Society" on. Do you have the numbers?   *SNIP*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JROC, 1964 on includes the Great Society.  You are the one who has to provide the numbers for the OP.  If you can't, you fail.
Click to expand...


Jroc has Fail here.

The Great Society reduced poverty by almost 30% in less than ten years.  Blacks, while lagging behind in total %, have increased their share in society dramatically since 1964.  Some GOP of course have cast their votes for the betterment of minorities in these programs, but the Dems have taken the led.

This lack of commitment is one reaons why minorities shy away from my Republican Party.


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK5X5Qg6wYU]Walter Williams: "Black Americans and Liberty" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:
			
		

> No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.



If they are, then they're also intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals DON'T stop helping them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Walter Wi;lliams is an ideologue not an objective observer.  He knows where his bread is buttered.

The figures of the last 47 years simply do not favor the arguments of the far right.  Sorry, guys, but tis what tis.


----------



## Dragon

There are really two things going on in this thread, two fallacious ideas being put forth. The first is: "Because we used to do something decades ago, you should believe that we still do even though we've changed." The second is: "Helping someone is really hurting them."

The South is a poison pill. Or I should say, the unreconstructed southern white male vote is a poison pill. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and a black activist asked him how he felt about going against the Southern Democrats, he replied, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God in Heaven, I'm free at last!" The implication being that the Southern white male vote was more trouble than it was worth, and kept the Democrats bound to positions that were at odds with where the party stood overall.

It works the same way for the Republicans. But arguably, it's even worse for them, because the GOP was founded as an anti-slavery, pro-civil-rights party, so in courting the vote of Southern white males, the party has sold its soul.


----------



## JakeStarkey

As a Republicn white male who lives in the Deep South, some truth exists to what you say, Dragon.

However, we who uphold the true banner of the GOP have been working diligently to isolate the "old white Southern stupidity" with some good effect (the crazies are isolated and dying off), but we are having real trouble with the pseudo-libertarian wing that has captured the Tea Party movement.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> A far comparison would be from the "Great Society" on. Do you have the numbers?   *SNIP*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JROC, 1964 on includes the Great Society.  You are the one who has to provide the numbers for the OP.  If you can't, you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jroc has Fail here.
> 
> The Great Society reduced poverty by almost 30% in less than ten years.  Blacks, while lagging behind in total %, have increased their share in society dramatically since 1964.  Some GOP of course have cast their votes for the betterment of minorities in these programs, but the Dems have taken the led.
> 
> This lack of commitment is one reaons why minorities shy away from my Republican Party.
Click to expand...


30% - at what $ amount? 

While I do understand that it's not 'about the money', surely we are smart enough to realize that this 'great society' shit is not actually working? 

We keep throwing money at 'welfare' programs instead of addressing the root causes of poverty: lack of education, drugs, irresponsible behavior. Address these instead of constantly throwing money at the poor in a blatant and manipulative 'buying' of votes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What we need, CG, is to work together and stop insisting Hooverian "rugged individualsim' is the only way to go.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> What we need, CG, is to work together and stop insisting Hooverian "rugged individualsim' is the only way to go.



I've never been a big supporter of 'rugged individualism', I've always supported personal responsibility - and compassion for those less fortunate... and, financial support for our most vulnerable. However, the fact is that this 'great society' has not helped those it was supposed to help. It is a classic example of how much damage is inflicted upon those you are seeking to help if you address only one part of the problem. 

We have consistently thrown money at those in need - and we throw money at education, and drugs, and we reward irresponsible behavior. All that needs to be reviewed. We don't need more money - we need to fix what is broken.


----------



## JakeStarkey

California Girl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need, CG, is to work together and stop insisting Hooverian "rugged individualsim' is the only way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been a big supporter of 'rugged individualism', I've always supported personal responsibility - and compassion for those less fortunate... and, financial support for our most vulnerable. However, the fact is that this 'great society' has not helped those it was supposed to help. It is a classic example of how much damage is inflicted upon those you are seeking to help if you address only one part of the problem.
> 
> We have consistently thrown money at those in need - and we throw money at education, and drugs, and we reward irresponsible behavior. All that needs to be reviewed. We don't need more money - we need to fix what is broken.
Click to expand...


Your interp of the GS and its effects are off mark.  But I agree that tremendous reform is necessary in our programs to turn recipients into solid working taxpayers.  This is going to take some effort and a consensus by both parties.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need, CG, is to work together and stop insisting Hooverian "rugged individualsim' is the only way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been a big supporter of 'rugged individualism', I've always supported personal responsibility - and compassion for those less fortunate... and, financial support for our most vulnerable. However, the fact is that this 'great society' has not helped those it was supposed to help. It is a classic example of how much damage is inflicted upon those you are seeking to help if you address only one part of the problem.
> 
> We have consistently thrown money at those in need - and we throw money at education, and drugs, and we reward irresponsible behavior. All that needs to be reviewed. We don't need more money - we need to fix what is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interp of the GS and its effects are off mark.  But I agree that tremendous reform is necessary in our programs to turn recipients into solid working taxpayers.  This is going to take some effort and a consensus by both parties.
Click to expand...



You keep saying these programs are a success, you are wrong try addressing the points Walter Williams makes directly instead of simply criticizing the person


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been a big supporter of 'rugged individualism', I've always supported personal responsibility - and compassion for those less fortunate... and, financial support for our most vulnerable. However, the fact is that this 'great society' has not helped those it was supposed to help. It is a classic example of how much damage is inflicted upon those you are seeking to help if you address only one part of the problem.
> 
> We have consistently thrown money at those in need - and we throw money at education, and drugs, and we reward irresponsible behavior. All that needs to be reviewed. We don't need more money - we need to fix what is broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interp of the GS and its effects are off mark.  But I agree that tremendous reform is necessary in our programs to turn recipients into solid working taxpayers.  This is going to take some effort and a consensus by both parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying these programs are a success, you are wrong try addressing the points Walter Williams makes directly instead of simply criticizing the person
Click to expand...


Check the %s over the last fifty years and tell me the programs did not contribute to the improvement of minorities' positions economically and socially.  You could but you would be wrong.  Williams is wrong.  I am glad that he, Sowell, West, Thomas, et al succeeded and are happy being Republicans.  But the point is that they are exceptions that prove the rule that those programs were necessary and successful for many.  Check the %s.

If you think this country is giving up entitlements or reforming them _a la Ryan_, you are outside political and cultural reality.  If you think the Tea Party movement older folks are giving up SS and medicare as they know it, you are on the outside looking in.  Not going to happen.


----------



## daveman

Jroc said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Blacks file Class Action Racial Discrimination Suit Against Obama & Democrats - Move-On-Up.org
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat apologize for their racism?
> 
> Never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 100 yrs of the Democrat Party's war against African Americans should be worth something.
Click to expand...

The GOP has supported civil rights since its inception.  Democrats are johnny-come-latelys.  

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/CivilRightsPlatforms.pdf


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm one of those "Black people are intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals stop 'helping' them" conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they are, then they're also intelligent enough to succeed on their own if liberals DON'T stop helping them.
Click to expand...

Liberals' "help" is preventing many from succeeding.

That's the whole idea.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interp of the GS and its effects are off mark.  But I agree that tremendous reform is necessary in our programs to turn recipients into solid working taxpayers.  This is going to take some effort and a consensus by both parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying these programs are a success, you are wrong try addressing the points Walter Williams makes directly instead of simply criticizing the person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check the %s over the last fifty years and tell me the programs did not contribute to the improvement of minorities' positions economically and socially.  You could but you would be wrong.  Williams is wrong.  I am glad that he, Sowell, West, Thomas, et al succeeded and are happy being Republicans.  But the point is that they are exceptions that prove the rule that those programs were necessary and successful for many.  Check the %s.
> 
> If you think this country is giving up entitlements or reforming them _a la Ryan_, you are outside political and cultural reality.  If you think the Tea Party movement older folks are giving up SS and medicare as they know it, you are on the outside looking in.  Not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Jake are you stupid or something? Who is suggesting people give up SS and Medicare? they need to be reformed, they are unsustainable and to say Great Society programs have been great for black Americas you are delusional. Most all they have done is create a dependency, break down the traditional family 70% of black babies are born to single mothers, our public schools are a joke, the inner city dropout rate here in Detroit is 75% get your head out of your ass man.


----------



## Jroc

> *Just How &#8220;Great&#8221; was the Great Society?*
> 
> 
> The Great Society was the panacea for poverty, right?  And it especially helped blacks, who had been held back by years of racism, didn&#8217;t it?  For those who think that the government is the most efficient dispensary of public welfare, the answer is yes.  But the historical facts and figures disagree markedly, and it&#8217;s hard to paint this disparity as sheer coincidence.  Those facts indicate that the plight of blacks had been improving up until the passage of the Great Society program, but that in the forty-some-odd years since, blacks&#8217; economic, social, familial, and educational situations have gotten much worse.
> 
> Service is more than an idea.  It is action.  Real service gets benificent results, not just the hope of them.  Based on results, the Great Society has been an abysmal failure.
> 
> *The Facts: The Great Society was Severely Detrimental to Blacks *
> Jonah Goldberg reminds us that
> 
> &#8230;one tragic consequence of [Great Society] strategy was that the government used child poverty to crush individualism and pride among inner-city blacks.  &#8230;when Congress mandated food stamps, welfare &#8220;recruiters&#8221;&#8230;went into the cities to convince poor people to enroll.
> 
> ..at the end of the day, their welfare state&#8211;based though it may have been on love, concern, and niceness&#8211;resulted in more damage to the black family&#8230;  Today black childern are less likely to be raised by two parents than they were during the era of slavery.
> 
> Liberal Fascism, pp. 346, 347
> 
> Prior to the advent of the Great Society, black families were much better off.  Poverty was on the decline, and crime was at a low level, but not for long.  Goldberg writes
> 
> Crime soared because of the Great Society and the attitudes of which it partook.  In the decade after the Great Society, the murder rate effectively doubled.  Black-on-black crime soared in particular.  Riots exploded&#8230;  [A]s Thomas Sowell has cataloged, the biggest drop in black poverty took place during the two decades before the Great Society.
> 
> Liberal Fascism, pp. 269-270
> 
> Additional negative results of the Great Society&#8217;s expansion of the welfare state are detailed in A Patriot&#8217;s History of the United States.  For example:
> 
> [Aid to Families with Dependent Children's--AFDC] no-father policy&#8230;left inner-city black boys with no male role models.  After a few years [in] one of &#8220;the projects&#8221;&#8230;a young man could literally look in any direction and not see an intact black family.  Stepping up as role models, the gang leaders&#8230;inducted thousands of impressionable young males into drug running, gun battles, and often death.  No amount of jobs programs would fill the void produced by the Great Society&#8217;s perverted incentives that presumed as unnecessary the role of the father.
> 
> A Patriot&#8217;s History of the United States, pp. 689
> 
> The New Deal originated the AFDC program.  Until the Great Society, however, AFDC had the exclusive purpose of providing for widows&#8211;previously married women who had lost the breadwinner in their homes.
> 
> In the 1960s,  however, Johnson and Congress quietly changed AFDC qualifications to include any household where there was no male family head present, a shift that made virtually any divorced or single mother of low income eligible for taxpayer money.  *The incentives of the program made it financially more lucrative not to be married than to be married.*
> 
> Seen in the numbers, the changes from the previous decade were shocking.  In 1950, 88 percent of white families and 78 percent of black families consisted of a husband and wife in a traditional marriage.  These numbers had not changed since the Great Depression&#8230;
> 
> A Patriot&#8217;s History of the United States, pp. 688
> 
> But as the Great Society came to fruition, the black family began a steep decline.  Within 12 years, the percentage of traditional black families dropped nearly 20 percent in relation to population.  Schweikart and Allen write that
> 
> This was nothing less than a prescription for the utter destruction of traditional black families, and had it been proposed by the Imperial Wizard of the KKK&#8230;such a program would have met with a quick and well-deserved fate.  But embraced by liberal intellectuals and politicians, the war on poverty&#8230;was the policy equivalent of smallpox on inner-city black families&#8230;
> 
> A Patriot&#8217;s History of the United States, pp. 68


Just How &#8220;Great&#8221; was the Great Society? « Simple Utah Mormon Politics


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying these programs are a success, you are wrong try addressing the points Walter Williams makes directly instead of simply criticizing the person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the %s over the last fifty years and tell me the programs did not contribute to the improvement of minorities' positions economically and socially.  You could but you would be wrong.  Williams is wrong.  I am glad that he, Sowell, West, Thomas, et al succeeded and are happy being Republicans.  But the point is that they are exceptions that prove the rule that those programs were necessary and successful for many.  Check the %s.
> 
> If you think this country is giving up entitlements or reforming them _a la Ryan_, you are outside political and cultural reality.  If you think the Tea Party movement older folks are giving up SS and medicare as they know it, you are on the outside looking in.  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake are you stupid or something? Who is suggesting people give up SS and Medicare? they need to be reformed, they are unsustainable and to say Great Society programs have been great for black Americas you are delusional. Most all they have done is create a dependency, break down the traditional family 70% of black babies are born to single mothers, our public schools are a joke, the inner city dropout rate here in Detroit is 75% get your head out of your ass man.
Click to expand...


The stats say you are wrong.  Yes, the programs need to be reformed, but they will never be recreated as voucher programs.  And stop the racist screed: the issue is income $, not race.  Whites have the same problem.

Working class (40%)  1980, 10.2%   2007, 40%

Under class (10%)  1980,  44.5%   2007, 70%

"The white overclass? They&#8217;re still living in the 1950s&#8212;their ratio is probably about 4 or 5 percent tops.  But while the elite may continue to live in its pleasant little world for a while, that  world is not going to bear much resemblance to the rest of America. And, increasingly, the rest of America isn&#8217;t going to bear much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate"
Pasadena Sub Rosa: WHITE ILLEGITIMACY RATES SKYROCKETING


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check the %s over the last fifty years and tell me the programs did not contribute to the improvement of minorities' positions economically and socially.  You could but you would be wrong.  Williams is wrong.  I am glad that he, Sowell, West, Thomas, et al succeeded and are happy being Republicans.  But the point is that they are exceptions that prove the rule that those programs were necessary and successful for many.  Check the %s.
> 
> If you think this country is giving up entitlements or reforming them _a la Ryan_, you are outside political and cultural reality.  If you think the Tea Party movement older folks are giving up SS and medicare as they know it, you are on the outside looking in.  Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake are you stupid or something? Who is suggesting people give up SS and Medicare? they need to be reformed, they are unsustainable and to say Great Society programs have been great for black Americas you are delusional. Most all they have done is create a dependency, break down the traditional family 70% of black babies are born to single mothers, our public schools are a joke, the inner city dropout rate here in Detroit is 75% get your head out of your ass man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stats say you are wrong.  Yes, the programs need to be reformed, but they will never be recreated as voucher programs.  And stop the racist screed: the issue is income $, not race.  Whites have the same problem.
> 
> Working class (40%)  1980, 10.2%   2007, 40%
> 
> Under class (10%)  1980,  44.5%   2007, 70%
> 
> "The white overclass? Theyre still living in the 1950stheir ratio is probably about 4 or 5 percent tops.  But while the elite may continue to live in its pleasant little world for a while, that  world is not going to bear much resemblance to the rest of America. And, increasingly, the rest of America isnt going to bear much resemblance to the America we used to celebrate"
> Pasadena Sub Rosa: WHITE ILLEGITIMACY RATES SKYROCKETING
Click to expand...


of course big government liberal policies have failed generally, although putting people in classes and attempting to cater to those classes are part of the failure, this thread was on Republicans and their traditional alliance with African Americans.Youre the one who says the democrats are so great now because they have given us all these failed policies not me


----------



## JakeStarkey

The stats confound you, kiddo.

The programs can be done far better, but the OP here remains a real fail.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> The stats confound you, kiddo.
> 
> The programs can be done far better, but the OP here remains a real fail.



Nope Not in the least, you fai,l you contradict yourself. As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone. Liberty and the free market is all the help most people need, it has made us the most successful country in the history of the world, and it was the aim of the democrat party to deprive black Americans that liberty for far too long, as Republicans fought for their liberty. It is currently the Democrats aim to deprive all of our liberty. Liberty is not a bad thing Jake.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone.



How do you measure this? On an individual basis there is plenty of evidence that they have helped people -- including me.

When I lost my job a couple years ago, I drew unemployment. I flailed around trying to find a new job at the worst possible time for it, and in a bad demographic situation, too (I'm a 55 year old man). I failed, as might be expected.

Then one day, while I was fruitlessly cruising Craigslist looking for sales openings, I saw the category for "writing" and thought, why not, what do I have to lose? So I found a job to apply for and did. I didn't get the job, but in the course of applying for it, I found out about an on-line networking service that facilitates freelancing. And that's what I'm doing now, writing and editing for a living.

Without unemployment, I would have been up shit creek and no mistake. So that big government liberal program sure helped me!

I think you need to explain what you mean when you say such programs haven't helped anyone, because on the face of it that's simply nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stats confound you, kiddo.
> 
> The programs can be done far better, but the OP here remains a real fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope Not in the least, you fai,l you contradict yourself. As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone. Liberty and the free market is all the help most people need, it has made us the most successful country in the history of the world, and it was the aim of the democrat party to deprive black Americans that liberty for far too long, as Republicans fought for their liberty. It is currently the Democrats aim to deprive all of our liberty. Liberty is not a bad thing Jake.
Click to expand...


That is your opinion, one that you cannot document with facts and analysis.

Jroc Fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure this? On an individual basis there is plenty of evidence that they have helped people -- including me.
> 
> When I lost my job a couple years ago, I drew unemployment. I flailed around trying to find a new job at the worst possible time for it, and in a bad demographic situation, too (I'm a 55 year old man). I failed, as might be expected.
> 
> Then one day, while I was fruitlessly cruising Craigslist looking for sales openings, I saw the category for "writing" and thought, why not, what do I have to lose? So I found a job to apply for and did. I didn't get the job, but in the course of applying for it, I found out about an on-line networking service that facilitates freelancing. And that's what I'm doing now, writing and editing for a living.
> 
> Without unemployment, I would have been up shit creek and no mistake. So that big government liberal program sure helped me!
> 
> I think you need to explain what you mean when you say such programs haven't helped anyone, because on the face of it that's simply nonsense.
Click to expand...


Jroc believes in twisting facts (if any) to this philosophy.  If no facts, then just yell the philosophy.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure this?* On an individual basis *there is plenty of evidence that they have helped people -- including me.
> 
> When I lost my job a couple years ago, I drew unemployment. I flailed around trying to find a new job at the worst possible time for it, and in a bad demographic situation, too (I'm a 55 year old man). I failed, as might be expected.
> 
> Then one day, while I was fruitlessly cruising Craigslist looking for sales openings, I saw the category for "writing" and thought, why not, what do I have to lose? So I found a job to apply for and did. I didn't get the job, but in the course of applying for it, I found out about an on-line networking service that facilitates freelancing. And that's what I'm doing now, writing and editing for a living.
> 
> Without unemployment, I would have been up shit creek and no mistake. So that big government liberal program sure helped me!
> 
> I think you need to explain what you mean when you say such programs haven't helped anyone, because on the face of it that's simply nonsense.
Click to expand...


of course but when we look at the big picture we are spiraling towards bankruptcy and that will not help anyone, and I don't put unemployment in with the same category as the res,t as long as it's not a 2yr deal, but I think we're getting a little off topic here


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said Failed big government programs have for the most part not helped anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure this? On an individual basis there is plenty of evidence that they have helped people -- including me.
> 
> When I lost my job a couple years ago, I drew unemployment. I flailed around trying to find a new job at the worst possible time for it, and in a bad demographic situation, too (I'm a 55 year old man). I failed, as might be expected.
> 
> Then one day, while I was fruitlessly cruising Craigslist looking for sales openings, I saw the category for "writing" and thought, why not, what do I have to lose? So I found a job to apply for and did. I didn't get the job, but in the course of applying for it, I found out about an on-line networking service that facilitates freelancing. And that's what I'm doing now, writing and editing for a living.
> 
> Without unemployment, I would have been up shit creek and no mistake. So that big government liberal program sure helped me!
> 
> I think you need to explain what you mean when you say such programs haven't helped anyone, because on the face of it that's simply nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jroc believes in twisting facts (if any) to this philosophy.  If no facts, then just yell the philosophy.
Click to expand...


Facts..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fClzzfMR3ek]1300 White Republicans Lynched by the KKK.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> of course but when we look at the big picture we are spiraling towards bankruptcy



First, no organization that controls its own currency can ever be bankrupt.

Second, if you want to cut federal expenditures aid to the poor and unemployed is a drop in the ocean, compared to either the mammoth "defense" budget and the irresponsible Bush tax cuts. I'll believe anyone seriously means to balance the budget when they discuss rectifying those two things.



> and I don't put unemployment in with the same category as the res,t as long as it's not a 2yr deal, but I think we're getting a little off topic here



No, we're not. Unemployment is in the same category as the rest by any reasonable standard, and I DID draw it for a year and a half, although not two years. The only distinction when it's not extended is that the funds are all state rather than federal. It's still a program to help people who are in trouble, as I was, with government assistance. That puts it in the same general category as food stamps or TANF.

The reason we're not off-topic is that we're discussing why the Republicans no longer receive the black vote. The reason is that Republicans are ungenerous towards the poor and black people are disproportionately poor. Also, Republicans have soft-pedaled their former commitment to racial equality and learned to flirt with subtle racism in order to get the southern white vote. It's very true, as you pointed out, that it was the GOP who were the champions of civil rights and racial equality from the party's founding in the 1850s until the late 1960s. But it's been quite a while since the late '60s, and that old truth is true no longer.

As I said, this thread comes down to two fallacious arguments. One of those is, "Look at what we used to be, and ignore what we've become." The other is, "Helping someone keeps them from supporting themselves." The reality is that a lack of opportunity is what keeps people from supporting themselves. Without the help, they'd be worse off, not better.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you measure this? On an individual basis there is plenty of evidence that they have helped people -- including me.
> 
> When I lost my job a couple years ago, I drew unemployment. I flailed around trying to find a new job at the worst possible time for it, and in a bad demographic situation, too (I'm a 55 year old man). I failed, as might be expected.
> 
> Then one day, while I was fruitlessly cruising Craigslist looking for sales openings, I saw the category for "writing" and thought, why not, what do I have to lose? So I found a job to apply for and did. I didn't get the job, but in the course of applying for it, I found out about an on-line networking service that facilitates freelancing. And that's what I'm doing now, writing and editing for a living.
> 
> Without unemployment, I would have been up shit creek and no mistake. So that big government liberal program sure helped me!
> 
> I think you need to explain what you mean when you say such programs haven't helped anyone, because on the face of it that's simply nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc believes in twisting facts (if any) to this philosophy.  If no facts, then just yell the philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fClzzfMR3ek]1300 White Republicans Lynched by the KKK.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


1868?  What about 1968, Jroc?  The % of southern GOP congressmen and senators voting against Civil Rights and Voting Rights in 1964 and 1965 was higher than southern Dem voting against them.

Context, factual, and honest.

Try it.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc believes in twisting facts (if any) to this philosophy.  If no facts, then just yell the philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fClzzfMR3ek]1300 White Republicans Lynched by the KKK.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1868?  What about 1968, Jroc?  The % of southern GOP congressmen and senators voting against Civil Rights and Voting Rights in 1964 and 1965 was higher than southern Dem voting against them.
> 
> Context, factual, and honest.
> 
> Try it.
Click to expand...




> *House of Representatives:*
> 
> Democrats for:       152
> Democrats against:    96
> Republicans for:     138
> Republicans against:  34
> 
> *Senate:*
> 
> Democrats for:        46
> Democrats against:    21
> Republicans for:      27
> Republicans against:   6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the
> Senate, only 69 percent of* Democrats* (46 for, 21 against) voted for
> the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of *Republicans* (27 for,
> 6 against). All southern *Democratic* senators voted against the act.
> [...]  In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of *Democrats* (152
> for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103
> Southern *Democrats *voted against it. Among *Republicans*, 80 percent
> (138 for, 34 against) voted for it."



*"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"*

Google Answers: Voting record for the Civil Rights Act


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gotta be fair with the numbers, Jroc, and with the geography.  Sen Dems in the South voted 1 -21 for it, Sen Pubs in the South vote 0-1, House Dems 7-87 and House Pubs 0-10.  We are see a pattern emerge.  In the West and the North, Dems 145-9 in favor and Pubs 138-24.

Thus, (1) we know that Kennedy then Johnson took the lead with Hubert Humphrey driving the Congress House and Senate forward, with some solid help from northern Pub leadership, and (2) the Dems on this issue deserve the greater share with some solid applause for the Pubs.

I am ashamed of my party since 1968 on matters of racial equality in this country.

Republican House Member Misrepresents History On Civil Rights Legislation | The Moderate Voice


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Gotta be fair with the numbers, Jroc, and with the geography.  Sen Dems in the South voted 1 -21 for it, Sen Pubs in the South vote 0-1, House Dems 7-87 and House Pubs 0-10.  We are see a pattern emerge.  In the West and the North, Dems 145-9 in favor and Pubs 138-24.
> 
> Thus, (1) we know that Kennedy then Johnson took the lead with Hubert Humphrey driving the Congress House and Senate forward, with some solid help from northern Pub leadership, and (2) the Dems on this issue deserve the greater share with some solid applause for the Pubs.
> 
> I am ashamed of my party since 1968 on matters of racial equality in this country.
> 
> Republican House Member Misrepresents History On Civil Rights Legislation | The Moderate Voice



*

"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans*"

I think the democrat party should pay reparations to African Americans. Absolutely, they should be ashamed of their history and admit what they did.


----------



## midcan5

Newt still repeats the code and yet some believe the apologists. And so it goes....

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ******, ******, ******. By 1968 you cant say ******  that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. Youre getting so abstract now youre talking about cutting taxes, and all these things youre talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. Im not saying that. But Im saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me  because obviously sitting around saying, We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ******, ******. Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/186726-republican-ideology-through-history-7.html#post4251322


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html


----------



## Jroc

It is funny to me how liberal Democrats tend to ignore their own history all together than turn to bullshit fabrication of Republicans as an excuse to ignore the atrocities they perpetrated on Africans Americans for 100yrs 




> Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the &#8220;party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.&#8221;
> 
> In that &#8217;66 campaign, Nixon &#8211; *who had been thanked personally by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 *&#8211; endorsed all Republicans, except members of the John Birch Society.
> 
> In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George (&#8220;Your home is your castle!&#8221 Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order.
> 
> When the &#8217;68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.
> 
> Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon &#8211; who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand:
> 
> * raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;
> 
> * doubled the budget for black colleges;
> 
> * appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions
> than any president, including LBJ;
> 
> * adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks
> in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and
> universities;
> 
> * invented &#8220;Black Capitalism&#8221; (the Office of Minority Business
> Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses
> from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business
> loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits
> in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent;
> 
> * raised the share of Southern schools that were
> desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the
> U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, &#8220;It has only been
> since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation
> has taken place in the South.&#8221;


The Neocons and Nixon&#8217;s Southern Strategy » Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> I think the democrat party should pay reparations to African Americans. Absolutely, they should be ashamed of their history and admit what they did.



I think neither the dem nor the pub should pay such a liberal fandango.

The dems have made up for their history on race and we GOP are trying to throw ours away.


----------



## Dragon

Democrats already did pay reparations for their history of racism. That's what the Civil Rights Act was: penance.

Republicans, on the other hand, since 1968 have been paying reparations to the slave owners they once deprived of their property.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Democrats already did pay reparations for their history of racism. That's what the Civil Rights Act was: penance.
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, since 1968 have been paying reparations to the slave owners they once deprived of their property.


You really believe that stupid shit?

Don't drink the bong water, kid.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats already did pay reparations for their history of racism. That's what the Civil Rights Act was: penance.
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, since 1968 have been paying reparations to the slave owners they once deprived of their property.
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe that stupid shit?
Click to expand...


In the sense of either party being actually motivated by remorse, no. It was just an appropriate reply to other stupid shit.

That that was the effect, yes. There's no denying that the Democrats had a history of racism and that the CRA amounted to making up for it whether that was their intent or not. And there's also no denying that since the late '60s, the parties have swapped places on the issues of civil rights and racial equality.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many Republicans are trying to work with the Dems.

Many Dems, of course, have turned a just cause into a Special Interests Group to their own political advantage.

The matter of fact is that all Americans regardless of party should be fighting for civil rights every day.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats already did pay reparations for their history of racism. That's what the Civil Rights Act was: penance.
> 
> Republicans, on the other hand, since 1968 have been paying reparations to the slave owners they once deprived of their property.
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe that stupid shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the sense of either party being actually motivated by remorse, no. It was just an appropriate reply to other stupid shit.
> 
> That that was the effect, yes. There's no denying that the Democrats had a history of racism and that the CRA amounted to making up for it whether that was their intent or not. And there's also no denying that since the late '60s, the parties have swapped places on the issues of civil rights and racial equality.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.  Here's the source of your confusion (and you are very confused):

Not wanting to treat people differently based on the color of their skin is NOT racism.  

Democrats want to treat people differently based on their race.  Republicans do not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman is confused as usual.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman is confused as usual.


Not at all, you mindless Obamabot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, daveman, are the one with the man crush of your Dear Leader.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Not wanting to treat people differently based on the color of their skin is NOT racism.
> 
> Democrats want to treat people differently based on their race.  Republicans do not.



Ah, I understand the confusion. I was dealing with reality rather than right-wing deceptive talking points.


----------



## sealybobo

Repubs can talk all they want.  Show Them The Money!  The GOP had control of all three branches of government from 2000-2006.  Almost the entire time.  How did blacks do?  Or how did poor blacks do, because Herman Cain did fine.  

Did the GOP cut scholarships or increase scholarships for poor people?  If history is any proof, they cut those programs.  

Did the GOP send good paying jobs overseas?  Why would poor/middle class black people vote for that?

Cut programs like Planned Parenthood?

Vote against SCHIP healthcare for poor kids?  

Black people are not stupid.  They once belonged to the GOP.  Look up the Great Flood of Mississippi and how the GOP lost the black vote.  And then the civil rights 1960's where the GOP decided to be the racist party so they could win the south.

You gotta earn the black vote. 

And the GOP has gone so far right they are losing the hispanic vote too.  Big mistake.


----------



## sealybobo

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to treat people differently based on the color of their skin is NOT racism.
> 
> Democrats want to treat people differently based on their race.  Republicans do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I understand the confusion. I was dealing with reality rather than right-wing deceptive talking points.
Click to expand...


Daveman is right.  I've been saying that for years.  Republicans don't care if you are gay, black or muslim.  They only use those things to divide us.  

Money is all that matters to them.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> You, daveman, are the one with the man crush of your Dear Leader.


I'd ask you to prove that, but you don't do proof.  You just expect people to accept your grand pronouncements.

You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.  But then, most leftists are.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to treat people differently based on the color of their skin is NOT racism.
> 
> Democrats want to treat people differently based on their race.  Republicans do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I understand the confusion. I was dealing with reality rather than right-wing deceptive talking points.
Click to expand...

No, you weren't.  You're repeating the "GOP is racist!!" horseshit you're programmed with.

Have you ever even tried to think for yourself?


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, daveman, are the one with the man crush of your Dear Leader.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd ask you to prove that, but you don't do proof.  You just expect people to accept your grand pronouncements.  You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.  But then, most leftists are.
Click to expand...


You are such a projectopotamus, daveman.


----------



## daveman

sealybobo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not wanting to treat people differently based on the color of their skin is NOT racism.
> 
> Democrats want to treat people differently based on their race.  Republicans do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I understand the confusion. I was dealing with reality rather than right-wing deceptive talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daveman is right.  I've been saying that for years.  Republicans don't care if you are gay, black or muslim.  They only use those things to divide us.
> 
> Money is all that matters to them.
Click to expand...

Oh, goody, just what the board needs -- yet another in a seemingly endless series of mindless leftists.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, daveman, are the one with the man crush of your Dear Leader.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd ask you to prove that, but you don't do proof.  You just expect people to accept your grand pronouncements.  You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.  But then, most leftists are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a projectopotamus, daveman.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point, kid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Which will match seamlessly with you as a brainless far righty, daveman.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd ask you to prove that, but you don't do proof.  You just expect people to accept your grand pronouncements.  You're destined to go through life bitter and disappointed, kid.  But then, most leftists are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a projectopotamus, daveman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point, kid.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Which will match seamlessly with you as a brainless far righty, daveman.


Don't you have to pull your head out of Obama's ass sometimes for air?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I can't do a thing about BHO and his buddies, but I can do something about folks like you in my Republican Party.   You hurt the party far more than you help it.  If you want to beat on people without doing worthwhile, continue doing what you are doing.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> I can't do a thing about BHO and his buddies, but I can do something about folks like you in my Republican Party.   You hurt the party far more than you help it.  If you want to beat on people without doing worthwhile, continue doing what you are doing.


Jake, we have one liberal party.  We don't need two.  The GOP moving to the left is part of what caused the mess we're in.  

If you want to get your liberal on, join the Democrats.  The GOP should be conservative.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not part of the mainstream of the GOP.  You are a far, far right wack in the small, small far right wack minority.  You will not dictate the future of the party.  Romney is making sure of that.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not part of the mainstream of the GOP.  You are a far, far right wack in the small, small far right wack minority.  You will not dictate the future of the party.  Romney is making sure of that.


Go suck Obama's ass some more, kid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wanting a Romney victory is anything but.  The more you fight against the mainstream GOP the more you look like a disillusioned lemon-sucking far wack righty, daveman.  Tis what tis.  Come on.  Get on board with Romney.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Wanting a Romney victory is anything but.  The more you fight against the mainstream GOP the more you look like a disillusioned lemon-sucking far wack righty, daveman.  Tis what tis.  Come on.  Get on board with Romney.



Unsurprisingly, you support the most liberal GOP candidate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all.  Newt is far more liberal, but even if he weren't, he would be a disaster.

The remainder can't beat Obama because of folks like you.

Thus, we get Romney because of folks like you.


----------



## Jroc

The Democrat party has always been the party of racism, and they continue to be they keep Blacks dependent. They keep them stuck in failing inner city public schools which is a crime in itself in my view.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM]Barack Obama & the DC School Voucher Program - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-6FCKhh00&feature=related]Milton Friedman - School Choice - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> The Democrat party has always been the party of racism, and they continue to be they keep Blacks dependent.



As I said, there are two arguments presented here: pay attention to what we once were and forget what we've become; and to help is to harm. There you have both of them in a nutshell.

The Democrats have NOT "always" been the party of racism. The Democrats WERE the party of racism from the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. Those Democrats who were racists left the party after that, and became Republicans.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat party has always been the party of racism, and they continue to be they keep Blacks dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there are two arguments presented here: pay attention to what we once were and forget what we've become; and to help is to harm. There you have both of them in a nutshell.
> 
> The Democrats have NOT "always" been the party of racism. The Democrats WERE the party of racism from the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. *Those Democrats who were racists left the party after that, and became Republicans*.
Click to expand...


Wrong... Name them?


----------



## Dragon

I can name all the ones I knew growing up in Texas, but I doubt the names would mean much to you. I'm referring to VOTERS, of course, not politicians.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> I can name all the ones I knew growing up in Texas, but I doubt the names would mean much to you. I'm referring to VOTERS, of course, not politicians.



Empty... You got nothing thanks for your contribution


----------



## Dragon

Actually, I have everything, and you are simply in denial. The white people in the South who used to vote Democratic with great loyalty now vote Republican only a little less reliably.

You know that. You know what it means. You know it means I'm right. But because few Democratic POLITICIANS actually switched parties (they lost elections instead), you can PRETEND that you don't know these things.

What you can't do is have your pretense be believed.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Actually, I have everything, and you are simply in denial. The white people in the South who used to vote Democratic with great loyalty now vote Republican only a little less reliably.
> 
> You know that. You know what it means. You know it means I'm right. But because few Democratic POLITICIANS actually switched parties (they lost elections instead), you can PRETEND that you don't know these things.
> 
> What you can't do is have your pretense be believed.



Empty... Try a little harder next time


----------



## Jroc

Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm6fnQ5no0o&feature=endscreen&NR=1]The Difference between a Republican and A Democrat - YouTube[/ame]

Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it?


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have everything, and you are simply in denial. The white people in the South who used to vote Democratic with great loyalty now vote Republican only a little less reliably.
> 
> You know that. You know what it means. You know it means I'm right. But because few Democratic POLITICIANS actually switched parties (they lost elections instead), you can PRETEND that you don't know these things.
> 
> What you can't do is have your pretense be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... Try a little harder next time
Click to expand...


Oh, are you asking me to prove what I'm saying? All right, here:

File:ElectoralCollege1928.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1932.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1936.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1940.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1944.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Up to this time, the Democrats, win or lose, ALWAYS won the South. But then Truman desegregated the armed forces and:

File:ElectoralCollege1948.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Southern voters punished him, but couldn't bring themselves to vote Republican; those states went third party. The setback was temporary for the Dems:

File:ElectoralCollege1952.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1956.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1960.svg

The strain between the Democrats and the South is visible in 1960, too, but overall Kennedy still won the South. So did Stevenson, even though he lost the elections.

Beginning in 1964, that started to change:

File:ElectoralCollege1964.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here we have a prevision of today's pattern when a Republican loses a presidential bid: just as the Democrats used to do, he still wins the South.

But it took a while for the South to begin reliably voting Republican:

File:ElectoralCollege1968.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, most of the South went third party (George Wallace), but notably Nixon lost the Northeast, which used to be a GOP stronghold. Here we have the first year of the "Southern strategy."

File:ElectoralCollege1972.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1976 we have the last gasp of the Democratic South:

File:ElectoralCollege1976.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1980 on, the new pattern is visible:

File:ElectoralCollege1980.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1984.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1988.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1992.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege1996.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege2000.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege2004.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:ElectoralCollege2008.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before the 1960s, the Democrats, whether they won or lost the election, always won the South. Now, that's true of the Republicans. How could that NOT be for any reason except that voters in the South, who used to vote Democratic, today vote Republican?

Q.E.D.


----------



## Brutus

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat party has always been the party of racism, and they continue to be they keep Blacks dependent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, there are two arguments presented here: pay attention to what we once were and forget what we've become; and to help is to harm. There you have both of them in a nutshell.
> 
> The Democrats have NOT "always" been the party of racism. The Democrats WERE the party of racism from the Civil War until the Civil Rights Act. Those Democrats who were racists left the party after that, and became Republicans.
Click to expand...


Ah but today blacks vote 92% for Democrats not to be free but to collect welfare. As Reagan asked, isn't welfare a form of [Democratic]slavery"?


----------



## Brutus

Jroc said:


> Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969) was a Republican U.S. Congressman and Senator from Pekin, Illinois. As Republican Senate leader he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Difference between a Republican and A Democrat - YouTube
> 
> Sounds kind of familiar doesn't it?


Let's not forget that Jefferson was the first Republican and Dirkson's thoughts came exactly from Jefferson . Republicans are the real Americans. Democrats are opposed to freedom from government so really aren't American


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can name all the ones I knew growing up in Texas, but I doubt the names would mean much to you. I'm referring to VOTERS, of course, not politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... You got nothing thanks for your contribution
Click to expand...


Strom Thurmond, for one.

I deal with this in our central committees here and elsewhere in the Deep South.  I keep reminding those good old boys that the black individual who cleans their office buildings is the equal before God and in the ballot box.  They hate that.  But we deal with it, and we are getting better as those old turds die out.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can name all the ones I knew growing up in Texas, but I doubt the names would mean much to you. I'm referring to VOTERS, of course, not politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... You got nothing thanks for your contribution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond, for one.
> 
> I deal with this in our central committees here and elsewhere in the Deep South.  I keep reminding those good old boys that the black individual who cleans their office buildings is the equal before God and in the ballot box.  They hate that.  But we deal with it, and we are getting better as those old turds die out.
Click to expand...


thats one and thats it


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have everything, and you are simply in denial. The white people in the South who used to vote Democratic with great loyalty now vote Republican only a little less reliably.
> 
> You know that. You know what it means. You know it means I'm right. But because few Democratic POLITICIANS actually switched parties (they lost elections instead), you can PRETEND that you don't know these things.
> 
> What you can't do is have your pretense be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... Try a little harder next time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, are you asking me to prove what I'm saying? All right, here:
> url]
> 
> Before the 1960s, the Democrats, whether they won or lost the election, always won the South. Now, that's true of the Republicans. How could that NOT be for any reason except that voters in the South, who used to vote Democratic, today vote Republican?
> 
> Q.E.D.
Click to expand...



*"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" *

There is no counter for this OP, Demographics change those maps don't show anything, most were landslides, there is not really any pattern there... Weak.. The fact is real conservative Republicans have always been for individual liberty, Democrats not so much, they supported slavery, Segregation, and collectivism were the individual is controlled by a few elitist overlords in government.  Like I said you've got nothing, I have real history to support me, you not so much.


----------



## sealybobo

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... Try a little harder next time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, are you asking me to prove what I'm saying? All right, here:
> url]
> 
> Before the 1960s, the Democrats, whether they won or lost the election, always won the South. Now, that's true of the Republicans. How could that NOT be for any reason except that voters in the South, who used to vote Democratic, today vote Republican?
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" *
> 
> There is no counter for this OP, Demographics change, the fact is real conservative Republicans have always been for individual liberty, Democrats not so much, they supported slavery, Segregation, and collectivism were the individual is controlled by a few elitist overloads in government.  Like I said you've got nothing, I have real history to support me, you not so much.
Click to expand...


Times have change.  Ever hear of the Southern Stretegy?  Civil rights cost the Democrats the south to this day.

And the GOP lost blacks first during the Great Mississippi flood of 1929.  I have history and facts too.  Look at what the GOP did to them.  Similar to how they treated blacks during Katrina, only worse.


----------



## Jroc

sealybobo said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, are you asking me to prove what I'm saying? All right, here:
> url]
> 
> Before the 1960s, the Democrats, whether they won or lost the election, always won the South. Now, that's true of the Republicans. How could that NOT be for any reason except that voters in the South, who used to vote Democratic, today vote Republican?
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" *
> 
> There is no counter for this OP, Demographics change, the fact is real conservative Republicans have always been for individual liberty, Democrats not so much, they supported slavery, Segregation, and collectivism were the individual is controlled by a few elitist overloads in government.  Like I said you've got nothing, I have real history to support me, you not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Times have change.  Ever hear of the Southern Stretegy?  Civil rights cost the Democrats the south to this day.
> 
> And the GOP lost blacks first during the Great Mississippi flood of 1929.  I have history and facts too.  Look at what the GOP did to them.  Similar to how they treated blacks during Katrina, only worse.
Click to expand...


impressive.... Read through the thread you might learn something clone "Katrina" Democrats contolled the south in 1929


----------



## Salt Jones

Jroc said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans" *
> 
> There is no counter for this OP, Demographics change, the fact is real conservative Republicans have always been for individual liberty, Democrats not so much, they supported slavery, Segregation, and collectivism were the individual is controlled by a few elitist overloads in government.  Like I said you've got nothing, I have real history to support me, you not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Times have change.  Ever hear of the Southern Stretegy?  Civil rights cost the Democrats the south to this day.
> 
> And the GOP lost blacks first during the Great Mississippi flood of 1929.  I have history and facts too.  Look at what the GOP did to them.  Similar to how they treated blacks during Katrina, only worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> impressive Read through the thread you might learn something clone "Katrina"and democrats contolled the south in 1929
Click to expand...


Learn what? Your made up "history". White conservatives have been the true enemies of black Americans since Jamestown.


----------



## Jroc

Salt Jones said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Times have change.  Ever hear of the Southern Stretegy?  Civil rights cost the Democrats the south to this day.
> 
> And the GOP lost blacks first during the Great Mississippi flood of 1929.  I have history and facts too.  Look at what the GOP did to them.  Similar to how they treated blacks during Katrina, only worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impressive Read through the thread you might learn something clone "Katrina"and democrats contolled the south in 1929
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn what? Your made up "history". White conservatives have been the true enemies of black Americans since Jamestown.
Click to expand...


The racist chime in, Get some help man you've got problems


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empty... You got nothing thanks for your contribution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond, for one.
> 
> I deal with this in our central committees here and elsewhere in the Deep South.  I keep reminding those good old boys that the black individual who cleans their office buildings is the equal before God and in the ballot box.  They hate that.  But we deal with it, and we are getting better as those old turds die out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats one and thats it
Click to expand...


Strom is the most notable one at the national level.  Jroc, our high schools and colleges clearly instruct the students that your defense is nonsense.  Argue all you want here, it means nothing out there.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond, for one.
> 
> I deal with this in our central committees here and elsewhere in the Deep South.  I keep reminding those good old boys that the black individual who cleans their office buildings is the equal before God and in the ballot box.  They hate that.  But we deal with it, and we are getting better as those old turds die out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats one and thats it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strom is the most notable one at the national level.  Jroc, our high schools and colleges clearly instruct the students that your defense is nonsense.  Argue all you want here, it means nothing out there.
Click to expand...


This is an informational thread, to help counter the lack of info provided by our public schools


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Wanting a Romney victory is anything but.  The more you fight against the mainstream GOP the more you look like a disillusioned lemon-sucking far wack righty, daveman.  Tis what tis.  Come on.  Get on board with Romney.


If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him simply because he's not Obama.

But you look like an idiot cheerleading for Obama and then saying you want him to lose.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Not at all.  Newt is far more liberal, but even if he weren't, he would be a disaster.
> 
> The remainder can't beat Obama because of folks like you.
> 
> Thus, we get Romney because of folks like you.


Newt's more liberal?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> I can name all the ones I knew growing up in Texas, but I doubt the names would mean much to you. I'm referring to VOTERS, of course, not politicians.


And of course, you can't prove that assertion.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Actually, I have everything, and you are simply in denial. The white people in the South who used to vote Democratic with great loyalty now vote Republican only a little less reliably.
> 
> You know that. You know what it means. You know it means I'm right. But because few Democratic POLITICIANS actually switched parties (they lost elections instead), you can PRETEND that you don't know these things.
> 
> What you can't do is have your pretense be believed.


When you say you have everything, you mean mindless leftist talking points.  

My in-laws are Democrats.  They're also racists.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strom Thurmond, for one.
> 
> I deal with this in our central committees here and elsewhere in the Deep South.  I keep reminding those good old boys that the black individual who cleans their office buildings is the equal before God and in the ballot box.  They hate that.  But we deal with it, and we are getting better as those old turds die out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats one and thats it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strom is the most notable one at the national level.  Jroc, our high schools and colleges clearly instruct the students that your defense is nonsense.  Argue all you want here, it means nothing out there.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, you blindly accept leftist indoctrination and historical revision.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The revisiion is attempted by you and has been thrown out the window.

Your nonsense is not what is being taught in the high schools and colleges, and never will be.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> The revisiion is attempted by you and has been thrown out the window.
> 
> Your nonsense is not what is being taught in the high schools and colleges, and never will be.


Exactly -- because the left controls education.  

Why do you keep up the charade, Fake?  No one's buying it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why don't you give up pretending you have the slightest idea of being American and conservative, Daveman?  Nope, the responsible left, center, and right control education, the feebly mental dweebs like you are easily shown up for what they are, a danger to the country.


----------



## Jroc

Lets try to stay on topic. 


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhfEvqceB4&feature=related]History of the Republican Party Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Why don't you give up pretending you have the slightest idea of being American and conservative, Daveman?  Nope, the responsible left, center, and right control education, the feebly mental dweebs like you are easily shown up for what they are, a danger to the country.


Typical leftist:  Declares someone he disagrees with to be dangerous.  

Pretty soon you'll be advocating conservatives be rounded up and put in re-education camps.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are neither conservative nor pro-American.  You root for America's collapse, daveman.

Interesting you are talking about re-education camps.  That is what you and PC and others try to enforce on this board, then cry when you are shown as the fools you are.


----------



## Jroc

> *THE DEMOCRAT LEGACY OF SLAVERY, SECESSION, SEGREGATION, AND SOCIALISM *
> Written by Allen West
> 
> 
> The revelation of Senator Harry Reid's comments referencing "negro talk" is just indicative of the true sentiment elitist liberals, and indeed the Democrat party, have toward black Americans.
> 
> The history of the Democrat party is one of slavery, secession, segregation, and now socialism.
> 
> It is this new-aged socialism born from the Johnson Great Society programs that have castigated blacks as victims needing government dependency. One need only to look upon the city of Detroit to ascertain what liberal social welfare policies have produced for the inner city... the new plantation for black Americans.
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan was birthed by the Democrats as a terrorist wing to intimidate blacks, and whites, who sought to promote economic and education independence and social justice for blacks. What was once overt has just morphed and become covert, yet still exists.
> 
> One can only imagine the insanity and media outrage if Reid's quote had come from a member of the Republican party. I look forward to hearing from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on Reid's comments... or has liberal hush money paid for the silence of these proprietors of poverty and victimization theory?
> 
> Actually, if President Obama had any courage he would demand Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader, and discontinue any support for his Senate reelection... notice I said "if". I am quite sure the Soros money which elevated Obama to the position of President has bought his servitude.
> 
> I am running to represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District.  Why am I running for US Congress as a Republican? Simple.
> 
> I would rather stand proudly and be called "an Uncle Tom and a sellout" than lose my self-esteem and be considered an inferior by liberals.
> 
> I understand the legacy of the GOP and the black community... not the revisionist history espoused by liberal educators.  I am not, shall never be, and will not raise my daughters to be a part of the liberal 21st century plantation.
> 
> I am not just some articulate, clean, well spoken negro. I am an American warrior, Congressional candidate, and shall never submit to the collective progressive ideal of inferiority.
> 
> Senator Harry Reid's comments are disgusting, despicable, and unacceptable. They are representative of how intellectual elite liberals do indeed speak of black Americans in their closed private spaces.




To The Point News - THE DEMOCRAT LEGACY OF SLAVERY, SECESSION, SEGREGATION, AND SOCIALISM


----------



## Dragon

Jroc, the truth -- and we all know it -- is that back when the Republican Party actually lived and expressed that glorious history, you would not have been a Republican, and I would have been one.


----------



## Dante

Jroc said:


> *Historically Significant Black Experiences
> ...*


*
A former head of the GOP acknowledged and apologized for the racism of the GOP.


Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean spoke to the NAACP yesterday and said through an aide: "It's no coincidence that 43 out of 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus are Democrats. The Democratic Party is the real party of opportunity for African Americans."

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

---

By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005; A04

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong." 

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes*


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc, the truth -- and we all know it -- is that back when the Republican Party actually lived and expressed that glorious history, you would not have been a Republican, and I would have been one.



 The truth is the democrat party is and continues to be the party of racism and bigotry and you have no Idea who I am idiot.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc, the truth -- and we all know it -- is that back when the Republican Party actually lived and expressed that glorious history, you would not have been a Republican, and I would have been one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the democrat party
Click to expand...


does not exist. There is no such party in the U.S., or anywhere in the world AFAIK, as the Democrat Party.



> is and continues to be the party of racism and bigotry and you have no Idea who I am idiot.



LOL touched a nerve there, didn't I? But if you think that's true, given that black people vote Democratic in overwhelming margins, you must also think black people are imbeciles, which means you are a racist, which means I stand by what I said.

I'd have voted for Abraham Lincoln. You would not.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> You are neither conservative nor pro-American.  You root for America's collapse, daveman.
> 
> Interesting you are talking about re-education camps.  That is what you and PC and others try to enforce on this board, then cry when you are shown as the fools you are.


Oh, eat shit, you little bastard.  Your shit is tiresome.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the democrat party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> does not exist. There is no such party in the U.S., or anywhere in the world AFAIK, as the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> LOL touched a nerve there, didn't I? But if you think that's true, given that black people vote Democratic in overwhelming margins, you must also think black people are imbeciles, which means you are a racist, which means I stand by what I said.
> *
> I'd have voted for Abraham Lincoln. You would not*.



Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty. Democrats stood and still stand for enslavement. Do a little research then get back to me, or you can always read through this thread, that&#8217;s what it&#8217;s here for, ignorant people such as yourself.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty.



That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? He stood (weakly) for the individual liberty of African-Americans not to be slaves, but squarely against the liberty of slave owners to enjoy their property. He was also against the liberty of the states to secede from the Union, and committed quite a few violations of individual liberty by unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, compelling Kentucky and Maryland to stay in the Union at gunpoint, closing down dissenting newspapers, and instituting the United States' first conscription.

Fact is, during those same decades in which the Republican Party racked up that glorious heritage of freeing the slaves and standing for racial equality and civil rights, it was also the party of Big Government. Republicans consistently expanded government spending more than Democrats did, and imposed high tariffs and direct corporate subsidies. Not only that, but the nation's first modern liberal president was a Republican -- Theodore Roosevelt. When the Democrats jumped on that bandwagon during the Wilson era, they were playing me-too.

The key to understanding all this is that the Democrats during this time were the party of the South. From before the Civil War until the 1960s, a period of over a hundred years, the Democratic candidate for president almost always won the South, whether he won or lost the election. (He usually lost.) In the 1960s, the Democrats threw Southern whites under the bus. Over the next decade or so, the Republicans changed their approach to just about everything in order to gain the voters that the Democrats had abandoned. As they did, they gained the South -- and lost the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, which used to be Republican strongholds.

The GOP is not the party it was back in the days of glory. It's not too far wrong to say that it has become what the Democrats used to be, while the Democrats have become what the Republicans were. And that is why black voters, who once voted consistently Republican, now vote consistently Democratic. They haven't changed. The parties have.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? *He stood (weakly) for the individual liberty of African-Americans not to be slaves, but squarely against the liberty of slave owners to enjoy their property*. He was also against the liberty of the states to secede from the Union, and committed quite a few violations of individual liberty by unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, compelling Kentucky and Maryland to stay in the Union at gunpoint, closing down dissenting newspapers, and instituting the United States' first conscription.
> 
> Fact is, during those same decades in which the Republican Party racked up that glorious heritage of freeing the slaves and standing for racial equality and civil rights, it was also the party of Big Government. Republicans consistently expanded government spending more than Democrats did, and imposed high tariffs and direct corporate subsidies. Not only that, but the nation's first modern liberal president was a Republican -- Theodore Roosevelt. When the Democrats jumped on that bandwagon during the Wilson era, they were playing me-too.
> 
> The key to understanding all this is that the Democrats during this time were the party of the South. From before the Civil War until the 1960s, a period of over a hundred years, the Democratic candidate for president almost always won the South, whether he won or lost the election. (He usually lost.) In the 1960s, the Democrats threw Southern whites under the bus. Over the next decade or so, the Republicans changed their approach to just about everything in order to gain the voters that the Democrats had abandoned. As they did, they gained the South -- and lost the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, which used to be Republican strongholds.
> 
> The GOP is not the party it was back in the days of glory. It's not too far wrong to say that it has become what the Democrats used to be, while the Democrats have become what the Republicans were. And that is why black voters, who once voted consistently Republican, now vote consistently Democratic. They haven't changed. The parties have.
Click to expand...


Lincoln stood for the liberty of all people. One man does not have the right to enslave another it is against our founding principles. Democrats are to this day enslaving people to government control, and the real conservative Republican still stands as Lincoln did, although there are some who are democrat lite. All the rest of your post is just a way for the Democrats to deflect the fact, and the facts are the Democrat party is the same party of Slavery, Lynching&#8217;s, Segregation those are facts, that is their history, and their shame...Oh one more thing there is no right in the Constitution to secede from the union that issue was not settled till the civil war


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Lincoln stood for the liberty of all people. One man does not have the right to enslave another it is against our founding principles.



Not against our founding document, though, which protected it in a number of since-voided passages.

"Rights" and "liberties" are not identical in meaning. A liberty is simply the ability to do something or to avoid something. A right is a liberty which we judge to be deserved or justified. It is therefore possible to stand for the _rights_ of all people, but not to stand for the _liberties_ of all people, and Lincoln certainly didn't.

Rights change as society's judgment changes. In 1789, when the Constitution was first ratified, the judgment that some people had a right to own others as slaves prevailed, and consequently that black people had no inherent right not to be slaves. Today, we think otherwise, condemn slavery, and believe that everyone has a right not to be a slave.

Liberties are objective, unlike rights. They don't change. The liberty not to BE a slave is incompatible with the liberty to OWN slaves. That's as true today as it was in 1789, and we have gained the first only by losing the second.

Liberty is a zero-sum game.



> All the rest of your post is just a way for the Democrats to deflect the fact, and the facts are the Democrat party is the same party of Slavery, Lynchings, Segregation



That's not a fact. It's bullshit. That the Democratic Party once engaged in or supported these things is of course true. That they still do is ridiculous. Nor in fact to the Republicans; they are not so blatant as that

But nonetheless, the GOP has become similar to what the Democrats used to be, in that they pander to the white male Southern vote, which has become their base and stronghold, through more subtle racism as well as authoritarianism and militarism. In holding the South, the Democrats used to adopt positions that lost them the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast in most elections.

Today, the Republicans do that. The territorial dominance of the parties has almost completely switched (except that the GOP retains dominance in the small-population mountain states) -- because the parties have switched positions almost completely down the line.


----------



## Jroc

The founding documents never protected slavery so I&#8217;m not really sure what you&#8217;re talking about. There are no pro slavery comments at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It is  the Democrat party which has always and  still enslaves people, liberty means we fail or succeed based on our own merits it is not the job of government to determine this.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzcddec5cug&feature=related]1865 Frederick Douglass Speech Produced By Leroy Hyter - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> The founding documents never protected slavery so I&#8217;m not really sure what you&#8217;re talking about.



"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article I, Section 2.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Article I, Section 9.

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Article IV, Section 2.

The second quote protected the slave trade. The first gave extra political power (representation in Congress) on the basis of the number of slaves in a state. The third protected the right of property in slaves against laws in another state making slavery illegal.

The second quote expired on its own at the date provided. The first and third were voided by the 13th Amendment. However, at the time the Constitution was ratified, all three were in force.


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB5sLh8ZusQ&feature=related]The US Constitution is an anti-slavery document (blacks are 3/5ths a man clause explained) audio up - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

A video of someone denying the facts does not make them any less facts. The Constitution BECAME an anti-slavery document in 1865, with passage of the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was not one, and anyone's opinion to the contrary is bullshit.

EDIT: by the way, the 13th Amendment was a Republican accomplishment. Just thought I'd get that out there before you go off on another rant.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> *A video of someone denying the facts does not make them any less facts. *The Constitution BECAME an anti-slavery document in 1865, with passage of the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was not one, and anyone's opinion to the contrary is bullshit.
> 
> EDIT: by the way, the 13th Amendment was a Republican accomplishment. Just thought I'd get that out there before you go off on another rant.





Those are *quotes* from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you arent the first to try and fail on this thread. Thanks for playing.



> *The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?*
> 
> Frederick Douglass
> March 26, 1860
> A Speech Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland
> 
> 
> It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people. I am careful to make this statement here; in America it would not be necessary. It would not be necessary here if my assailant had shown the same desire to be set before you the simple truth, which he manifested to make out a good case for himself and friends. Again, it should be borne in mind that the mere text, and only the text, and not any commentaries or creeds written by those who wished to give the text a meaning apart from its plain reading, was adopted as the Constitution of the United States. It should also be borne in mind that the intentions of those who framed the Constitution, be they good or bad, for slavery or against slavery, are so respected so far, and so far only, as we find those intentions plainly stated in the Constitution. It would be the wildest of absurdities, and lead to endless confusion and mischiefs, if, instead of looking to the written paper itself, for its meaning, it were attempted to make us search it out, in the secret motives, and dishonest intentions, of some of the men who took part in writing it. It was what they said that was adopted by the people, not what they were ashamed or afraid to say, and really omitted to say. Bear in mind, also, and the fact is an important one, that the framers of the Constitution sat with doors closed, and that this was done purposely, that nothing but the result of their labours should be seen, and that that result should be judged of by the people free from any of the bias shown in the debates. It should also be borne in mind, and the fact is still more important, that the debates in the convention that framed the Constitution, and by means of which a pro-slavery interpretation is now attempted to be forced upon that instrument, were not published till more than a quarter of a century after the presentation and the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> These debates were purposely kept out of view, in order that the people should adopt, not the secret motives or unexpressed intentions of any body, but the simple text of the paper itself. Those debates form no part of the original agreement. I repeat, the paper itself, and only the paper itself, with its own plainly written purposes, is the Constitution. It must stand or fall, flourish or fade, on its own individual and self-declared character and objects. Again, where would be the advantage of a written Constitution, if, instead of seeking its meaning in its words, we had to seek them in the secret intentions of individuals who may have had something to do with writing the paper? What will the people of America a hundred years hence care about the intentions of the scriveners who wrote the Constitution? These men are already gone from us, and in the course of nature were expected to go from us. They were for a generation, but the Constitution is for ages. Whatever we may owe to them, we certainly owe it to ourselves, and to mankind, and to God, to maintain the truth of our own language, and to allow no villainy, not even the villainy of holding men as slaves  which Wesley says is the sum of all villainies  to shelter itself under a fair-seeming and virtuous language. We owe it to ourselves to compel the devil to wear his own garments, and to make wicked laws speak out their wicked intentions. Common sense, and common justice, and sound rules of interpretation all drive us to the words of the law for the meaning of the law. The practice of the Government is dwelt upon with much fervour and eloquence as conclusive as to the slaveholding character of the Constitution. This is really the strong point and the only strong point, made in the speech in the City Hall. But good as this argument is, it is not conclusive. A wise man has said that few people have been found better than their laws, but many have been found worse. To this last rule America is no exception. Her laws are one thing, her practice is another thing. We read that the Jews made void the law by their tradition, that Moses permitted men to put away their wives because of the hardness of their hearts, but that this was not so at the beginning. While good laws will always be found where good practice prevails, the reverse does not always hold true. Far from it. The very opposite is often the case. What then? Shall we condemn the righteous law because wicked men twist it to the support of wickedness? Is that the way to deal with good and evil? Shall we blot out all distinction between them, and hand over to slavery all that slavery may claim on the score of long practice? Such is the course commended to us in the City Hall speech. After all, the fact that men go out of the Constitution to prove it pro-slavery, whether that going out is to the practice of the Government, or to the secret intentions of the writers of the paper, the fact that they do go out is very significant. It is a powerful argument on my side. It is an admission that the thing for which they are looking is not to be found where only it ought to be found, and that is in the Constitution itself. If it is not there, it is nothing to the purpose, be it wheresoever else it may be. But I shall have no more to say on this point hereafter.
> 
> The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. I quote his own words:  "Article 1, section 9, provides for the continuance of the African slave trade for the 20 years, after the adoption of the Constitution. Art. 4, section 9, provides for the recovery from the other States of fugitive slaves. Art. 1, section 2, gives the slave States a representation of the three-fifths of all the slave population; and Art. 1, section 8, requires the President to use the military, naval, ordnance, and militia resources of the entire country for the suppression of slave insurrection, in the same manner as he would employ them to repel invasion." Now any man reading this statement, or hearing it made with such a show of exactness, would unquestionably suppose that he speaker or writer had given the plain written text of the Constitution itself. I can hardly believe that the intended to make any such impression. It would be a scandalous imputation to say he did. Any yet what are we to make of it? How can we regard it? How can he be screened from the charge of having perpetrated a deliberate and point-blank misrepresentation? That individual has seen fit to place himself before the public as my opponent, and yet I would gladly find some excuse for him. I do not wish to think as badly of him as this trick of his would naturally lead me to think. Why did he not read the Constitution? Why did he read that which was not the Constitution? He pretended to be giving chapter and verse, section and clause, paragraph and provision. The words of the Constitution were before him. Why then did he not give you the plain words of the Constitution? Oh, sir, I fear that the gentleman knows too well why he did not. It so happens that no such words as "African slave trade," no such words as "slave insurrections," are anywhere used in that instrument. These are the words of that orator, and not the words of the Constitution of the United States. Now you shall see a slight difference between my manner of treating this subject and what which my opponent has seen fit, for reasons satisfactory to himself, to pursue. What he withheld, that I will spread before you: what he suppressed, I will bring to light: and what he passed over in silence, I will proclaim: that you may have the whole case before you, and not be left to depend upon either his, or upon my inferences or testimony. Here then are several provisions of the Constitution to which reference has been made. I read them word for word just as they stand in the paper, called the United States Constitution, Art. I, sec. 2. "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons; Art. I, sec. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think fit to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding tend dollars for each person; Art. 4, sec. 2. No person held to service or labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from service or labour; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due; Art. I, sec. 8. To provide for calling for the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Here then, are those provisions of the Constitution, which the most extravagant defenders of slavery can claim to guarantee a right of property in man. These are the provisions which have been pressed into the service of the human fleshmongers of America. Let us look at them just as they stand, one by one. Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make that admission, for it might fairly apply to aliens  persons living in the country, but not naturalized. But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer  It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote. I come to the next, that which it is said guaranteed the continuance of the African slave trade for twenty years. I will also take that for just what my opponent alleges it to have been, although the Constitution does not warrant any such conclusion. But, to be liberal, let us suppose it did, and what follows? Why, this  that this part of the Constitution, so far as the slave trade is concerned, became a dead letter more than 50 years ago, and now binds no mans conscience for the continuance of any slave trade whatsoever



The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass


----------



## sealybobo

Only Herman Cain and Allen Keys.  But it is true.  Rich Republicans don't care if you are black or white. Only thing that matters to them is money.   

They don't even care about things like gays.  Chaney's daughter is a lesbian and they still pushed an anti gay agenda but that was just to appeal to poor and middle class Republicans.  They win over some of us with wedge issues like god, gays and guns.  Sprinkled with racism and now feminism.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Those are *quotes* from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you arent the first to try and fail on this thread



Dude, as much as I admire Douglas and Madison, and admire the intelligence and personal character of Hamilton (while reacting to his elitism with dismay), the actual TEXT of the Constitution is far better evidence than anything these men had to say about it in the way of trying to persuade the State of New York to ratify it and/or pushing the cause of abolition.

That actual text I have already quoted to show that the Constitution, as originally ratified,

1) Granted extra representation in Congress based on the possession of slaves, thus bolstering the political influence of slave owners;

2) Forbade any law that restricted the slave trade for a period of years after ratification; and

3) Mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, regardless of the laws in any state to which they escaped.

Now I'm sorry, but a document that does these things cannot be called "anti-slavery" by any honest and knowledgeable person. Actually, I don't believe that the authors of the Federalist ever claimed that. Douglass may have, but if so it was, well, basically a lie -- a propaganda statement meant to persuade people of his time to get behind emancipating the slaves. A lie in a good cause, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

If the Constitution were really an "anti-slavery" document, it would not have been necessary to amend it in order to outlaw slavery.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are *quotes* from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you arent the first to try and fail on this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, as much as I admire Douglas and Madison, and admire the intelligence and personal character of Hamilton (while reacting to his elitism with dismay), the actual TEXT of the Constitution is far better evidence than anything these men had to say about it in the way of trying to persuade the State of New York to ratify it and/or pushing the cause of abolition.
> 
> That actual text I have already quoted to show that the Constitution, as originally ratified,
> 
> 1) Granted extra representation in Congress based on the possession of slaves, thus bolstering the political influence of slave owners;
> 
> 2) Forbade any law that restricted the slave trade for a period of years after ratification; and
> 
> 3) Mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, regardless of the laws in any state to which they escaped.
> 
> Now I'm sorry, but a document that does these things cannot be called "anti-slavery" by any honest and knowledgeable person. Actually, I don't believe that the authors of the Federalist ever claimed that. Douglass may have, but if so it was, well, basically a lie -- a propaganda statement meant to persuade people of his time to get behind emancipating the slaves. A lie in a good cause, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.
> 
> If the Constitution were really an "anti-slavery" document, it would not have been necessary to amend it in order to outlaw slavery.
Click to expand...




"Dude" the pieces were put in place to eventually end slavery. There was* no way* to end it at the time the Constitution was written or we would not have a country. Sorry but I'll take Douglass opinion over yours Thanks again


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> "Dude" the pieces were put in place to eventually end slavery. There was* no way* to end it at the time the Constitution was written or we would not have a country.



I'm aware of the political realities at the time. I'm not saying it SHOULD have been anti-slavery, or that it realistically COULD have been anti-slavery. All I'm saying is that in actual fact, it WAS NOT. As for the pieces being in place, I can cite about 600,000 dead soldiers to show to the contrary. A civil war is not a legitimate "piece" towards any end. That it happened is definitive proof that no legal and nonviolent path to emancipation existed.



> Sorry but I'll take Douglas&#8217;s opinion over yours&#8230; Thanks again



Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are using a logical fallacy. My opinion happens, as I have proven above, to be true. Therefore, if Mr. Douglass disagreed, he was -- provably -- wrong. Q.E.D.

I suggest you stop blindly relying on authority (when it's convenient for you) and start thinking for yourself. That's what your brain is there for.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> I'm aware of the political realities at the time. I'm not saying it SHOULD have been anti-slavery, or that it realistically COULD have been anti-slavery. All I'm saying is that in actual fact, it* WAS NOT. As for the pieces being in place, I can cite about 600,000 dead soldiers to show to the contrary.* A civil war is not a legitimate "piece" towards any end. That it happened is definitive proof that no legal and nonviolent path to emancipation existed.



As I said, secession was not addressed in the constitution. Individual liberty was, slavery could not continue to exist under our founding principles, and yes the framers knew over time slavery would be abolished.




> Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You are using a logical fallacy. My opinion happens, as I have proven above, to be true. Therefore, if Mr. Douglass disagreed, he was -- provably -- wrong. Q.E.D.
> 
> I suggest you stop blindly relying on authority (when it's convenient for you) and start thinking for yourself. That's what your brain is there for.



Umm....Ok.....So relying on the discussions at the time should be not considered when forming an opinion? You don't make any sense. Some people are just destine to stay ignorant ..


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> As I said, secession was not addressed in the constitution. Individual liberty was, slavery could not continue to exist under our founding principles, and yes the framers knew over time slavery would be abolished.



Individual liberty was NOT addressed in the Constitution. Specific rights that could perhaps be interpreted as slanting that way were, but then, so was slavery, and it was protected. Clearly, equal rights were not anticipated for black people, Native Americans, women, immigrants, poor people -- really, the only individual rights protected by the Constitution at its ratification were those of white male citizens who owned substantial amounts of property.




> Umm....Ok.....So relying on the discussions at the time should be not considered when forming an opinion?



The fallacy is not _considering_ such discussions, but rather holding views expressed in them as automatically right as to fact -- especially when we have clear evidence to the contrary at hand.

Authorities may be wrong, and when it comes to constitutional law Frederick Douglass wasn't even an authority, so you've engaged in two forms of the authoritarian fallacy: you've taken for an authority a man who lacks the credentials and knowledge to be one, and you are improperly shutting down all consideration of the possibility that he could be wrong.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Individual liberty was NOT addressed in the Constitution. Specific rights that could perhaps be interpreted as slanting that way were, but then, so was slavery, and it was protected. Clearly, *equal rights were not anticipated for black people, Native Americans, women, immigrants, poor people -- really, the only individual rights protected by the Constitution at its ratification were those of white male citizens who owned substantial amounts of property.*



I invite you to point out where it says that. More liberal BS along with the rest of your liberal stupidity. Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.



> * Mr. Lincoln's noble and impressive apostrophe to the Declaration of Independence. This was truly one of the finest efforts of public speaking I ever listened to. It gave to his auditors such an insight into the character of the man as ought to carry him into the Senate on a great surge of popular affection." He then quoted Mr. Lincoln, who said the Declaration of Independence:*
> 
> ...was formed by the representatives of American liberty from thirteen States of the confederacy &#8212; twelve of which were slaveholding communities. *We need not discuss the way or the reason of their becoming slaveholding communities. It is sufficient for our purpose that all of them greatly deplored the evil and that they placed a provision in the Constitution which they supposed would gradually remove the disease by cutting off its source. This was the abolition of the slave trade. So general was conviction &#8212; the public determination &#8212; to abolish the African slave trade, that the provision which I have referred to as being placed in the Constitution, declared that it should not be abolished prior to the year 1808. A constitutional provision was necessary to prevent the people, through Congress, from putting a stop to the traffic immediately at the close of the war. Now, if slavery had been a good thing, would the Fathers of the Republic have taken a step calculated to diminish its beneficent influences among themselves, and snatch the boon wholly from their posterity? These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the w*hole world of men: 'We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. The erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began &#8212; so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.8




http://www.mrlincolnandthefounders.org/inside.asp?ID=1&subjectID=1


----------



## regent

The Republican party had to choose, the poor or the rich, they could not support both. Repubilcans went to the money.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> I invite you to point out where it says that.



I already did. The Constitution protected slavery, and that's enough right there.



> Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.



He could be, but it depends on whether he is speaking at any given time as a lawyer or as a politician. In any case, the quote you presented is discussing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I invite you to point out where it says that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did. The Constitution protected slavery, and that's enough right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could be, but it depends on whether he is speaking at any given time as a lawyer or as a politician. In any case, the quote you presented is discussing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.



It shows the fact-based mind and its view of the country and its founding. Any reputable historian will say the same things I did above, whether or not he's a liberal.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows the fact-based mind and its view of the country and its founding. Any reputable historian will say the same things I did above, whether or not he's a liberal.
Click to expand...

Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.



Henry Adams.

There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Adams.
> 
> There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.
Click to expand...

You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?  

How about someone still alive?


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Adams.
> 
> There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?
> 
> How about someone still alive?
Click to expand...


Are there any conservative historians still alive? The problem is that while that used to be possible and even common, the modern "conservative" movement is all based around a denial of facts including large-scale historical revisionism, so that serious historians, just like serious scientists, won't be caught dead having anything to do with it.

Perhaps I've missed some, though. Remind me, if so.

EDIT: While we're having this digressive discussion, I feel I should remind everyone exactly what it's about. Jroc was making the claim that the U.S. Constitution was an anti-slavery document from its beginning. I pointed out that it's going to be impossible to find any historians of repute to agree with that. So while we're playing around with this "liberal/conservative historian" red herring, someone might try to find anyone's informed and serious opinion that agrees with what Jroc was saying. Failure to do so will support my claim that this is not a "liberal" but simply a fact-based position.


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Adams.
> 
> There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.
> 
> 
> 
> You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?
> 
> How about someone still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are there any conservative historians still alive? The problem is that while that used to be possible and even common, the modern "conservative" movement is all based around a denial of facts including large-scale historical revisionism, so that serious historians, just like serious scientists, won't be caught dead having anything to do with it.
> 
> Perhaps I've missed some, though. Remind me, if so.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought.  You're a closed-minded partisan hack.  

Dismissed.


----------



## Dragon

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.
> 
> You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.
> 
> That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?


You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.
> 
> You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.
> 
> That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I'll take that for a "no."  (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)

That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.
> 
> You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.
> 
> That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I'll take that for a "no."  (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)
> 
> That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?
Click to expand...

My goodness, you're not very bright.

I'm not defending Jroc.  I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.

As I suspected, and as you so amply proved, it's purely political.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.
> 
> You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.
> 
> That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I'll take that for a "no."  (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)
> 
> That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?
Click to expand...


The title of the thread genus

*"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"*

Of which I've provided tons of info all through this thread. The Decenters?...Not so much, Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> I'm not defending Jroc.  I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.



In other words, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, but merely being an ass, as usual.

Dismissed.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it



It was germane to an earlier part of the same discussion, but if you want to abandon it now, that's fine.

Once again, my problem with your thread title is the implied present tense. If you had said that the Republicans WERE or USED TO BE the real allies of African Americans, no one would have a quibble; obviously that's true. But in pretending that the Republican Party today is the same party, holding the same positions, that it did back when that was true, you are presenting an untruth. And that could not be more obvious.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was germane to an earlier part of the same discussion, but if you want to abandon it now, that's fine.
> 
> Once again, my problem with your thread title is the implied *present tense.* If you had said that the Republicans WERE or USED TO BE the real allies of African Americans, no one would have a quibble; obviously that's true. But in pretending that the Republican Party today is the same party, holding the same positions, that it did back when that was true, you are presenting an untruth. And that could not be more obvious.
Click to expand...


Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.



Whether asserted or implied, it's bullshit.


----------



## Jroc

Dragon said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether asserted or implied, it's bullshit.
Click to expand...


If you say so.... Anyone who takes the time to actually read through this thread might think otherwise. They'd also see that you've got nothing.


----------



## Dragon

Jroc said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.... Anyone who takes the time to actually read through this thread might think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they wouldn't. Anyone who came to that opinion would have demonstrated their complete inability to THINK at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending Jroc.  I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, but merely being an ass, as usual.
> 
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...

Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.  

You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?

You may think it's cleverly hidden, but it's astoundingly obvious.  That's because you're not nearly as clever as you think -- by several orders of magnitude.  



Yes, boy -- I'm laughing AT you.


----------



## Dragon

daveman said:


> Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.
> 
> You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?



You think I'm upset, Dave? Nonsense.

You can't do anything here that would upset me; that requires actions in real life. You can contribute to the discussion, or you can try to make it all about me. If you do the first, I'll answer. If you do the second, I'll blow you a raspberry.

Either way, I'm not upset. If I ever am upset (and that would require us actually knowing each other), trust me, you'll know.


----------



## Jroc

Democrats are for aborting black babies because they are black...



> The House of Representatives voted down a bill Thursday that sought to ban sex-selective abortion, 246-168, according to the Washington Post. The bill &#8220;failed to pass as House Republicans brought it up under a suspension of normal rules that required it to earn a two-thirds majority vote.&#8221; The Prenatal Non-discrimination Act would have created legal penalties of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly &#8220;performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, *color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child*.&#8221; Just seven House Republicans voted against the bill, with 20 Democrats voting in favor of the ban




U.S. House Democrats defeat sex-selective abortion ban | The Raw Story


----------



## daveman

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.
> 
> You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm upset, Dave? Nonsense.
> 
> You can't do anything here that would upset me; that requires actions in real life. You can contribute to the discussion, or you can try to make it all about me. If you do the first, I'll answer. If you do the second, I'll blow you a raspberry.
> 
> Either way, I'm not upset. If I ever am upset (and that would require us actually knowing each other), trust me, you'll know.
Click to expand...

You do realize, don't you, that by editing my post to remove the well-deserved mockery, you prove I'm right?

Here it is again:


daveman said:


> You may think it's cleverly hidden, but it's astoundingly obvious.  That's because you're not nearly as clever as you think -- by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, boy -- I'm laughing AT you.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.
> 
> You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm upset, Dave? Nonsense.
> 
> You can't do anything here that would upset me; that requires actions in real life. You can contribute to the discussion, or you can try to make it all about me. If you do the first, I'll answer. If you do the second, I'll blow you a raspberry.
> 
> Either way, I'm not upset. If I ever am upset (and that would require us actually knowing each other), trust me, you'll know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize, don't you, that by editing my post to remove the well-deserved mockery, you prove I'm right?
> 
> Here it is again:
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may think it's cleverly hidden, but it's astoundingly obvious.  That's because you're not nearly as clever as you think -- by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, boy -- I'm laughing AT you.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You thought that was worthy of reposting? 

Here's a good one for next time.......Liar, Liar, pants on fire


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are neither conservative nor pro-American.  You root for America's collapse, daveman.
> 
> Interesting you are talking about re-education camps.  That is what you and PC and others try to enforce on this board, then cry when you are shown as the fools you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, eat shit, you little bastard.  Your shit is tiresome.
Click to expand...


daveman shows balanced and fair commentary.  Do you even know what you personally mean when you use the term "re-education camp"?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm upset, Dave? Nonsense.
> 
> You can't do anything here that would upset me; that requires actions in real life. You can contribute to the discussion, or you can try to make it all about me. If you do the first, I'll answer. If you do the second, I'll blow you a raspberry.
> 
> Either way, I'm not upset. If I ever am upset (and that would require us actually knowing each other), trust me, you'll know.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize, don't you, that by editing my post to remove the well-deserved mockery, you prove I'm right?
> 
> Here it is again:
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may think it's cleverly hidden, but it's astoundingly obvious.  That's because you're not nearly as clever as you think -- by several orders of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, boy -- I'm laughing AT you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You thought that was worthy of reposting?
> 
> Here's a good one for next time.......Liar, Liar, pants on fire
Click to expand...

Dragon thanks you for the mindless support.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are neither conservative nor pro-American.  You root for America's collapse, daveman.
> 
> Interesting you are talking about re-education camps.  That is what you and PC and others try to enforce on this board, then cry when you are shown as the fools you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, eat shit, you little bastard.  Your shit is tiresome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daveman shows balanced and fair commentary.  Do you even know what you personally mean when you use the term "re-education camp"?
Click to expand...

Yes.  I don't need a liar to tell me what I think.  You'd get it wrong.


----------



## Jroc

Do you people post anything relating to the topic ,or do you just post to take cheap shots at each other?


----------



## Jroc

> *Race Gap: Blacks Fall Further Behind Under Obama*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Americans have overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in two presidential elections, but they have fallen further behind during his term in office, losing ground in measures of income, employment, and education.
> 
> The national unemployment rate has dropped to 7 percent, *but the jobless rate for blacks has hardly moved since Obama took office*, declining from 12.7 percent in 2009 to 12.5 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report.
> 
> And while the recession impacted all race and age groups' earnings, blacks fared the worst.
> 
> The poverty rate for blacks sharply increased, rising from 12 percent in 2008 to 16.1 percent Wednesday. Median income declined by 3.6 percent for white households to $58,000, but fell 10.9 percent to $33,500 for black households, Census Bureau figures show.
> 
> *"The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category," Tavis Smiley, a black radio talk-show host, said on Fox News in October. "On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible."*
> 
> While blacks turned out in record numbers to support Obama in 2012, many are becoming more vocal about the lack of progress for African-Americans.
> 
> "I don't know how much he has done or how much his policies are responsible for the current state of blacks in America. What I do know is that we are worse off than we were when he came into office," Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, told Newsmax.
> 
> At a conference at Howard University in early 2013, economist Dr. Bernard Anderson, who still supports Obama, expressed a sense of exasperation that has grown over the course of his presidency.
> 
> Anderson said: "He is not going to run again for anything. He does not deserve a pass anymore. Let him not only find his voice but summon his courage and use his political capital to address racial inequality. He owes that to the African-American community.&#8221;
> 
> Alford said the administration could help blacks by addressing the 20 percent decline in small business lending, investing more in programs that help prisoners transition into permanent jobs, and adopting education policies that support alternatives, including charter schools.
> 
> Alford cited the Keystone pipeline as one example where the president has rejected an issue that has support in Congress and could have a positive impact on African-American employment, particularly in the states through which the pipeline would run.
> 
> "There are lots of things he could do, but he has not done so," he said.







> Alford agrees that if Obama were white, it is likely he would receive more vocal criticism from the black community. Yet despite Obama's failure to deliver on his promise of jobs and better economic conditions, many African-Americans continue to show support, according to opinion polls



Race Gap: Blacks Fall Further Behind Under Obama


----------



## JakeStarkey

False stats, except for the govt assistance, which as blacks have been historically prejudiced against in the job market, they are the first generally to be let go.

You know that, Jroc.


----------



## Indeependent

In the early 90s every major company on Wall Street wanted ONE token black with an advanced degree.
ONE...got it?  ONE...Not more than one.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> False stats, except for the govt assistance, which as blacks have been historically prejudiced against in the job market, they are the first generally to be let go.
> 
> You know that, Jroc.



False?..Obama is bad for the entire economy and blacks suffer the most in General under liberal big government policies, that's a fact. Your love for Obama not withstanding


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False stats, except for the govt assistance, which as blacks have been historically prejudiced against in the job market, they are the first generally to be let go.
> 
> You know that, Jroc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False?..Obama is bad for the entire economy and blacks suffer the most in General under liberal big government policies, that's a fact. Your love for Obama not withstanding
Click to expand...


But they did VERY well under GW with those Sub-Prime mortgages.
Then they DIDN'T do so well under GW when the market crashed.


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mYg6Gt15o]2014 State of the Union Address- A Black Grassroots Response - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False stats, except for the govt assistance, which as blacks have been historically prejudiced against in the job market, they are the first generally to be let go.
> 
> You know that, Jroc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False?..Obama is bad for the entire economy and blacks suffer the most in General under liberal big government policies, that's a fact. Your love for Obama not withstanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they did VERY well under GW with those Sub-Prime mortgages.
> Then they DIDN'T do so well under GW when the market crashed.
Click to expand...


Income inequality has risen under Obama. Blacks have suffered more under this president


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> 2014 State of the Union Address- A Black Grassroots Response - YouTube



Wow!  The next thing we know, you'll link to a video of a Chassid who supports a Republican!


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> False?..Obama is bad for the entire economy and blacks suffer the most in General under liberal big government policies, that's a fact. Your love for Obama not withstanding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they did VERY well under GW with those Sub-Prime mortgages.
> Then they DIDN'T do so well under GW when the market crashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income inequality has risen under Obama. Blacks have suffered more under this president
Click to expand...


REALLY!  Just like that?  January 20, 2009 signaled the END OF THE WORLD!
Well, according to Rush.
By my calendar, GW, NOT a leader, allowed us to crash

Those who kept their portfolios have done extremely well under Obama.
Those who never had much of a portfolio or pulled out of the market have done very poorly.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 State of the Union Address- A Black Grassroots Response - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  The next thing we know, you'll link to a video of a Chassid who supports a Republican!
Click to expand...


Umm.. bit off topic but Orthodox Jews support Republicans 75% get your head on straight


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 State of the Union Address- A Black Grassroots Response - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  The next thing we know, you'll link to a video of a Chassid who supports a Republican!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm.. bit off topic but Orthodox Jews support Republicans 75% get your head on straight
Click to expand...


You are correct.
However, they didn't support Romney.
I know...I'm one of those frummies on Long Island.
We voted Republican for Municipal candidates, split on the State level and told Romney to go to hell.

And if you're frum, you really should be aware of recent US history and realize that neither party has anybody best interests in mind except for their own careers.


----------



## Jroc

> Statistics show that the African-American community is in bad shape under the Obama Administration.  The Labor Department reports that the black unemployment rate was at 12.7 percent when Pres. Obama initially took office. As the employment rate for the nation dropped below 8 percent, black unemployment increased to 12.9 percent and then to 14 percent for December.
> 
> In a recent interview on MSNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Meet the Press,&#8221; NAACP CEO and president, Ben Jealous, told the show&#8217;s host that black Americans &#8220;are doing far worse&#8221; than when President Obama first took office. &#8220;The country&#8217;s back to pretty much where it was when this president started,&#8221; Jealous told show host David Gregory. &#8220;White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black people are doing far worse.&#8221;
> 
> The most staggering statistic is reported in September 2011, when black unemployment reached 16.7 percent &#8212; making it the highest unemployment rate for African-Americans since 1983. The black teens jobless rate was even more staggering at 39.3 percent



http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/...ricans-are-doing-far-worse-under-obama-admin/


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Statistics show that the African-American community is in bad shape under the Obama Administration.  The Labor Department reports that the black unemployment rate was at 12.7 percent when Pres. Obama initially took office. As the employment rate for the nation dropped below 8 percent, black unemployment increased to 12.9 percent and then to 14 percent for December.
> 
> In a recent interview on MSNBCs Meet the Press, NAACP CEO and president, Ben Jealous, told the shows host that black Americans are doing far worse than when President Obama first took office. The countrys back to pretty much where it was when this president started, Jealous told show host David Gregory. White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black people are doing far worse.
> 
> The most staggering statistic is reported in September 2011, when black unemployment reached 16.7 percent  making it the highest unemployment rate for African-Americans since 1983. The black teens jobless rate was even more staggering at 39.3 percent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Jealous: Black Americans ?Are Doing Far Worse? Under Obama Admin. | Your Black World
Click to expand...


Are you going to embarrass world Jewry with your out of context links?

Let's take this from a different slant...Which president resided over African American success?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo-cons, like Jroc, never take responsibility for causing things to go wrong.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  The next thing we know, you'll link to a video of a Chassid who supports a Republican!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.. bit off topic but Orthodox Jews support Republicans 75% get your head on straight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> However, they didn't support Romney.
> I know...I'm one of those frummies on Long Island.
> We voted Republican for Municipal candidates, split on the State level and told Romney to go to hell.
> 
> And if you're frum, you really should be aware of recent US history and realize that neither party has anybody best interests in mind except for their own careers.
Click to expand...


Most current Republicans are not real conservatives, but the Republican Party throughout history has been more of an ally to African Americans than the Democrat party ever was. Which is the point of the thread. Has far as the point of your post? My Chabad shul was probably 97% for Romney but that's off topic


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.. bit off topic but Orthodox Jews support Republicans 75% get your head on straight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> However, they didn't support Romney.
> I know...I'm one of those frummies on Long Island.
> We voted Republican for Municipal candidates, split on the State level and told Romney to go to hell.
> 
> And if you're frum, you really should be aware of recent US history and realize that neither party has anybody best interests in mind except for their own careers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most current Republicans are not real conservatives, but the Republican Party throughout history has been more of an ally to African Americans than the Democrat party ever was. Which is the point of the thread. Has far as the point of your post? My Chabad shul was probably 97% for Romney but that's off topic
Click to expand...



Your Chabad must be in a VERY wealthy area.
Now, back to recent history (let's say starting at 1980) to supply concrete examples of how Republicans have been allies of African Americans.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics show that the African-American community is in bad shape under the Obama Administration.  The Labor Department reports that the black unemployment rate was at 12.7 percent when Pres. Obama initially took office. As the employment rate for the nation dropped below 8 percent, black unemployment increased to 12.9 percent and then to 14 percent for December.
> 
> In a recent interview on MSNBCs Meet the Press, NAACP CEO and president, Ben Jealous, told the shows host that black Americans are doing far worse than when President Obama first took office. The countrys back to pretty much where it was when this president started, Jealous told show host David Gregory. White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black people are doing far worse.
> 
> The most staggering statistic is reported in September 2011, when black unemployment reached 16.7 percent  making it the highest unemployment rate for African-Americans since 1983. The black teens jobless rate was even more staggering at 39.3 percent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Jealous: Black Americans ?Are Doing Far Worse? Under Obama Admin. | Your Black World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to embarrass world Jewry with your out of context links?
> 
> Let's take this from a different slant...Which president resided over African American success?
Click to expand...





> And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987  an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.



Ronald Reagan a Better Friend to Black Americans


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.
> However, they didn't support Romney.
> I know...I'm one of those frummies on Long Island.
> We voted Republican for Municipal candidates, split on the State level and told Romney to go to hell.
> 
> And if you're frum, you really should be aware of recent US history and realize that neither party has anybody best interests in mind except for their own careers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most current Republicans are not real conservatives, but the Republican Party throughout history has been more of an ally to African Americans than the Democrat party ever was. Which is the point of the thread. Has far as the point of your post? My Chabad shul was probably 97% for Romney but that's off topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your Chabad must be in a VERY wealthy area.
> Now, back to recent history (let's say starting at 1980) to supply concrete examples of how Republicans have been allies of African Americans.
Click to expand...


You're stupid stereotypes prove your mind is numb to reality. Liberal Jews tend to be more wealthy Chabad not so much. Stay on topic and read though the thread theres plenty of info here for people like yourself


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Jealous: Black Americans ?Are Doing Far Worse? Under Obama Admin. | Your Black World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to embarrass world Jewry with your out of context links?
> 
> Let's take this from a different slant...Which president resided over African American success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987 &#8212; an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan a Better Friend to Black Americans
Click to expand...


Excellent!  Much better to take a positive track that reflects the thread's title.
Now...Senior Bush and GW...
There MUST be something from these two who led us into massive recessions.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to embarrass world Jewry with your out of context links?
> 
> Let's take this from a different slant...Which president resided over African American success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987  an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan a Better Friend to Black Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent!  Much better to take a positive track that reflects the thread's title.
> Now...Senior Bush and GW...
> There MUST be something from these two who led us into massive recessions.
Click to expand...

"Massive recessions" big government, crony capitalism lead to recession. Cut in government is a good thing. Both Bushes actually failed in that, although Obama? is pretty much a joke. The wealthy investor class are the only people doing well under Obama Blacks not so much


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan a Better Friend to Black Americans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent!  Much better to take a positive track that reflects the thread's title.
> Now...Senior Bush and GW...
> There MUST be something from these two who led us into massive recessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Massive recessions" big government, crony capitalism lead to recession. Cut in government is a good thing. Both Bushes actually failed in that, although Obama? is pretty much a joke. The wealthy investor class are the only people doing well under Obama Blacks not so much
Click to expand...


Now that we agree that both parties are in it for themselves...
Can we have concrete examples of how Senior and GW we allies of African Americans.
I posit that in the political climate since Reagan, neither party has gone out of their way to lift African Americans.
AA may have done well under Reagan, but that was incidental.

I'd like to know what the Bushes and their Administrations did vis-à-vis the thread's title.


----------



## Indeependent

Still searching?


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Still searching?



Nope.. i was on another thread actually. Your premise is that the government should do something?  I agree with Frederick Douglass 



> In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us.  What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.  The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us&#8230;. I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.  Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! &#8230; And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  *All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! &#8230;  Your interference is doing him positive injury. *


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still searching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. i was on another thread actually. Your premise is that the government should do something?  I agree with Frederick Douglass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us.  What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.  The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.  Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!  And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  *All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!   Your interference is doing him positive injury. *
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Then change the title of the thread as the word Ally infers action.
The only things Republicans do is allow everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the effect.
Republicans are a business owners wet dream.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still searching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. i was on another thread actually. Your premise is that the government should do something?  I agree with Frederick Douglass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us.  What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.  The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. I have had but one answer from the beginning.  Do nothing with us!  Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.  Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!  And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also.  *All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!   Your interference is doing him positive injury. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then change the title of the thread as the word Ally infers action.
> The only things Republicans do is allow everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the effect.
> Republicans are a business owners wet dream.
Click to expand...



The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. i was on another thread actually. Your premise is that the government should do something?  I agree with Frederick Douglass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then change the title of the thread as the word Ally infers action.
> The only things Republicans do is allow everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the effect.
> Republicans are a business owners wet dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
Click to expand...


Slavery...Just as I would say to a Liberal, "Get with it!  It's 2014."

My opinion on thread titles...
The Republicans/Conservatives on this board CONSTANTLY make their thread titles ambiguous or just plain stupid/misleading.
Most of the time I don't agree with the far Lefties here but I really wish there was enforcement of thread titles having SOMETHING to do with the OP.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.. i was on another thread actually. Your premise is that the government should do something?  I agree with Frederick Douglass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then change the title of the thread as the word Ally infers action.
> The only things Republicans do is allow everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the effect.
> Republicans are a business owners wet dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
Click to expand...


Which initiatives have Republicans proposed to free blacks from this slavery?

Trickle down?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery...Just as I would say to a Liberal, "Get with it!  It's 2014."
> 
> My opinion on thread titles...
> The Republicans/Conservatives on this board CONSTANTLY make their thread titles ambiguous or just plain stupid/misleading.
> Most of the time I don't agree with the far Lefties here but I really wish there was enforcement of thread titles having SOMETHING to do with the OP.
Click to expand...


That is the point of the mainstream GOP and its leadership: the misguiding and often dishonest posturing of the neo-cons (like Jroc) and social cons have to end if we do not want to be the party of stupid.

Jroc will not be able to give you much GOP alliance for blacks since the Nixon era.  We were glorious in the 1950s and when we allied with the Dems in 64 and 65.

Not so much then, and the black voter knows that.

We have to change that perception by changing our behavior.


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then change the title of the thread as the word Ally infers action.
> The only things Republicans do is allow everybody to do whatever they want, regardless of the effect.
> Republicans are a business owners wet dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which initiatives have Republicans proposed to free blacks from this slavery?
> 
> Trickle down?
Click to expand...


School choice

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzUcAw1V9Dg&list=PLg-_t-RvdTsR3l_OezPtM7lEC11eZToIG"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzUcAw1V9Dg&list=PLg-_t-RvdTsR3l_OezPtM7lEC11eZToIG[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery...Just as I would say to a Liberal, "Get with it!  It's 2014."
> 
> My opinion on thread titles...
> The Republicans/Conservatives on this board CONSTANTLY make their thread titles ambiguous or just plain stupid/misleading.
> Most of the time I don't agree with the far Lefties here but I really wish there was enforcement of thread titles having SOMETHING to do with the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point of the mainstream GOP and its leadership: the misguiding and often dishonest posturing of the neo-cons (like Jroc) and social cons have to end if we do not want to be the party of stupid.
> 
> Jroc will not be able to give you much GOP alliance for blacks since the Nixon era.  We were glorious in the 1950s and when we allied with the Dems in 64 and 65.
> 
> Not so much then, and the black voter knows that.
> 
> We have to change that perception by changing our behavior.
Click to expand...


Allegiance with the Democrats to rob of our liberties is exactly the opposite of what should be done fake


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery...Just as I would say to a Liberal, "Get with it!  It's 2014."
> 
> My opinion on thread titles...
> The Republicans/Conservatives on this board CONSTANTLY make their thread titles ambiguous or just plain stupid/misleading.
> Most of the time I don't agree with the far Lefties here but I really wish there was enforcement of thread titles having SOMETHING to do with the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point of the mainstream GOP and its leadership: the misguiding and often dishonest posturing of the neo-cons (like Jroc) and social cons have to end if we do not want to be the party of stupid.
> 
> Jroc will not be able to give you much GOP alliance for blacks since the Nixon era.  We were glorious in the 1950s and when we allied with the Dems in 64 and 65.
> 
> Not so much then, and the black voter knows that.
> 
> We have to change that perception by changing our behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allegiance with the Democrats to rob of our liberties is exactly the opposite of what should be done fake
Click to expand...


False Flag by you, son.  Do you see the mainstream GOP leadership and member making allegiance with the Dems.

Nope.

You are going to have to straighten up or ride your own trail.


----------



## rightwinger

Jroc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is in the history room for a reason. the Republican party Historically has fought for the liberty of African Americans. the Democrat party still promotes Slavery. Slavery to the state. Their leftist policies have disrupted the natural order of things, created dependency, destroyed the black family structure and poor whites for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which initiatives have Republicans proposed to free blacks from this slavery?
> 
> Trickle down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> School choice
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzUcAw1V9Dg&list=PLg-_t-RvdTsR3l_OezPtM7lEC11eZToIG]Milton Friedman ~ The Enemies Of School Choice - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


School choice for whom?

White parents who don't want their children attending black schools?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

When both Republicans and Democratic parties began, they held opposite positions to how they define themselves now. Over time they both went 180 degrees from what they were about when they began. I think probably because originally there were more than two parties, and as the smaller ones ceased to exist their members joined the bigger two which remain to this day. So some ideological change was unavoidable.


----------



## GreenBean

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which initiatives have Republicans proposed to free blacks from this slavery?
> 
> Trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> School choice
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzUcAw1V9Dg&list=PLg-_t-RvdTsR3l_OezPtM7lEC11eZToIG]Milton Friedman ~ The Enemies Of School Choice - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> School choice for whom?
> 
> White parents who don't want their children attending black schools?
Click to expand...


White, Asian, Latino and decent Black Parents who don't want their children exposed to the violence, drugs , racism and academic failure that are rampant in predominantly Black Schools


----------



## bodecea

Truthmatters said:


> so you think only black women have abortions?



Sure sounds like it.   I wonder if he has noticed that in the last few years, the number of abortions have been dropping.   What would they do if there were no more abortions due to plentiful access to birth control?   Whatever would they do?


----------



## Jroc

Delta4Embassy said:


> When both Republicans and Democratic parties began, they held opposite positions to how they define themselves now. Over time they both went 180 degrees from what they were about when they began. I think probably because originally there were more than two parties, and as the smaller ones ceased to exist their members joined the bigger two which remain to this day. So some ideological change was unavoidable.



Do yourself a favor and quit "thinking" so much unless you want to prove something don't waste my time


----------



## Jroc

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which initiatives have Republicans proposed to free blacks from this slavery?
> 
> Trickle down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> School choice
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzUcAw1V9Dg&list=PLg-_t-RvdTsR3l_OezPtM7lEC11eZToIG]Milton Friedman ~ The Enemies Of School Choice - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> School choice for whom?
> 
> White parents who don't want their children attending black schools?
Click to expand...


School choice means school choice genus. Detroit public schools have  a 50% drop out rate give the parents some choice. Put a little competition in the mix. Make schools accountable to something besides the teacher union thugs. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUnjf0PikNs]Controversy, Washington D.C. Teachers Union President, Dirty Laundry (the unedited truth) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Jroc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqtE-f0yZoA]Star Parker: Welfare dependency destroys black families - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jroc is now engaging in FiliBabble.

The far right Pubs are not the ones to listen to about reaching out to the center.


----------



## Jroc

JakeStarkey said:


> Jroc is now engaging in FiliBabble.
> 
> The far right Pubs are not the ones to listen to about reaching out to the center.



Nothing from Jake fakley as usual


----------



## Indeependent

Jroc said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc is now engaging in FiliBabble.
> 
> The far right Pubs are not the ones to listen to about reaching out to the center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing from Jake fakley as usual
Click to expand...


So have nothing; fine.
If you have any integrity at all, simply admit your thread title is, at best, misleading.
I can imagine you raising eyebrows in a Daf Yomi (daily Talmud Page) class.


----------



## Jroc

Indeependent said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc is now engaging in FiliBabble.
> 
> The far right Pubs are not the ones to listen to about reaching out to the center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing from Jake fakley as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So have nothing; fine.
> If you have any integrity at all, simply admit your thread title is, at best, misleading.
> I can imagine you raising eyebrows in a Daf Yomi (daily Talmud Page) class.
Click to expand...


Yeah how so? Reread and get back to me, because you obviously haven't read and don't care to read the thread


----------



## JakeStarkey

We mainstream GOP members fully understand that the neo-cons and the social cons are out of touch with mainstream America.


----------

