# Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?



## S.J.

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


----------



## squeeze berry

no because, just like slavery, no one living had anything to do with the war.

but that is an interesting point.

Next time someone mentions slavery perhaps I will post a pic of a national cemetary


----------



## Sallow

Oh man..


----------



## mudwhistle

Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.

I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would. 

It's an interesting thought though.


----------



## katsteve2012

Sallow said:


> Oh man..



No kidding.


----------



## Mr Natural

But, but, but  . . .

The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.

(At least that's what the rednecks want us to believe.)


----------



## Sallow

mudwhistle said:


> Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.
> 
> I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would.
> 
> It's an interesting thought though.



There's nothing "interesting" about it.

Slavery was a crime of epic proportions. It should have never happened in the first place. And Certainly not for over a century in a country that purports to be the gold standard in terms of Human Rights. Europe was already done with it for quite some time.

If anything, the slaves should have been compensated for all of that..and for a time there was legislation that was making it's way through congress to do exactly that.

However, the focus shifted to reconstruction and while that was important, it also allowed for the racists to get a foothold back into politics. Hence Jim Crow and a plethora of abuses that followed the civil war.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.
> 
> I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would.
> 
> It's an interesting thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing "interesting" about it.
> 
> Slavery was a crime of epic proportions. It should have never happened in the first place. And Certainly not for over a century in a country that purports to be the gold standard in terms of Human Rights. Europe was already done with it for quite some time.
> 
> If anything, the slaves should have been compensated for all of that..and for a time there was legislation that was making it's way through congress to do exactly that.
> 
> However, the focus shifted to reconstruction and while that was important, it also allowed for the racists to get a foothold back into politics. Hence Jim Crow and a plethora of abuses that followed the civil war.
Click to expand...


Racist Democrats. Jim Crow laws went into effect in 1876 only because enough Democrats won office during and after reconstruction. Seems to me Democrats owe reparations to blacks.


----------



## Granny

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



Where, in all these proposed reparations, do the African chieftans who so readily sold their own tribesmen for self enrichment, stand? Why are they not included in all this talk of who did what?


----------



## FA_Q2

Let&#8217;s compare the number of dead white people in the civil war with the number of blacks that died in chains on slave ships headed to America, the number of dead black that died waiting in cages to be bought and the number of slaves that were killed by their &#8216;masters&#8217; from one cruelty or another.  Then we can factor in the rapes and other heinous crimes that were inflicted on the slaves.

Now, what were you saying?


----------



## High_Gravity

The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.


----------



## katsteve2012

High_Gravity said:


> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.



That is the sensible bottom line.


----------



## rightwinger

Every other nation on earth managed to get rid of slavery without killing 650,000 people

I'm sure blacks would have been perfectly fine if we ended slavery without a shot


----------



## rightwinger

High_Gravity said:


> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.



Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?

Only the racists seem to be bringing it up


----------



## NLT

rightwinger said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery*?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
Click to expand...




John Conyers , every congress from 1989 to present
you are right the racists keep bringing it up, the black ones



> In January of 1989, I first introduced the bill H.R. 40, Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. *I have re-introduced HR 40 every Congress since 1989, and will continue to do so until it's passed into law*.


----------



## High_Gravity

rightwinger said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
Click to expand...


I've never seen a Black person ask for them, except this idiot 52ndStreet on here.


----------



## NLT

High_Gravity said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a Black person ask for them, except this idiot 52ndStreet on here.
Click to expand...


See above^^^^^^


----------



## High_Gravity

NLT said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a Black person ask for them, except this idiot 52ndStreet on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See above^^^^^^
Click to expand...


I didn't know.


----------



## squeeze berry

High_Gravity said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The time for reparations has long passed, everyone to do with slavery is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a Black person ask for them, except this idiot 52ndStreet on here.
Click to expand...


John Conyers CBC


----------



## katsteve2012

squeeze berry said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone point out the last time anyone asked for reparations for slavery?
> 
> Only the racists seem to be bringing it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a Black person ask for them, except this idiot 52ndStreet on here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Conyers CBC
Click to expand...


Right. ONE person speaks for the entire black population. His proposal was introduced in 1989 almost 25 years ago(probably before you were born) and has still not gained enough traction to be  passed. If anything, this proposal will be a legacy on his tombstone.

Paranoid extremist wacko organizations like the following keep those you like a captive audience believing that this proposal may pass.

Not likely to happen.

Stormfront Gains New Member Today Because Of Michigan Negro Congressman John Conyers And His HR40, A Slavery Reparations Exploratory Bill
White Reference: Stormfront Gains New Member Today Because Of Michigan Negro Congressman John Conyers And His HR40, A Slavery Reparations Exploratory Bill


----------



## S.J.

If today's whites, who had nothing to do with slavery can be made to pay reparations to today's blacks, who were never slaves, why can't today's blacks be made to pay reparations to today's whites for the sacrifices their ancestors made so today's blacks could be free?


----------



## malikc6

Heres a topic like this I found on stormfront made by the biggest idiot on that site, fading light.

Non-Whites, you owe my race $12.5 quadrillion. Please remit payment at once. - Stormfront

Really. I don't know whether to get mad or laugh at this idiocy. 

As for the topic, no. Everyone involved in the war is dead and gone. The freed slaves are also dead and gone. I'm not involved with anything and neither is the rest of my race.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> If today's whites, who had nothing to do with slavery can be made to pay reparations to today's blacks, who were never slaves, why can't today's blacks be made to pay reparations to today's whites for the sacrifices their ancestors made so today's blacks could be free?



Which is exactly the point that most who are awake understand......NO white citizen is going to be "made" to pay a penny of reparations to ANY blacks in America. 

Not now, not ever. 

The Reparations "sky is falling" paranoia is exactly that. Nothing but a talking point that gets most of it's attention from Stormfront and similar organizations. 
And for good reason, it serves to help their cause for acquiring new members.
If it was not for them keeping it alive, the issue would be dead, as it should be.

Lastly, as far as "sacrifices" made by whites, those who bravely joined the civil rights movement in the 60's certainly do deserve the utmost honor and respect, as some of them were casualties who lost their lives fighting against the same rabid, southern racist, segregationist nuts that black citizens did back then. Which is commendable because they did not have to.


----------



## katsteve2012

malikc6 said:


> Heres a topic like this I found on stormfront made by the biggest idiot on that site, fading light.
> 
> Non-Whites, you owe my race $12.5 quadrillion. Please remit payment at once. - Stormfront
> 
> Really. I don't know whether to get mad or laugh at this idiocy.
> 
> As for the topic, no. Everyone involved in the war is dead and gone. The freed slaves are also dead and gone. I'm not involved with anything and neither is the rest of my race.



I would laugh. But I would still pay attention and be aware. What they are doing is using this to create hysteria among the gullible.

It's the same type of "marketing" that was used in Nazi Germany.


----------



## Gracie

Granny said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Where, in all these proposed reparations, do the African chieftans who so readily sold their own tribesmen for self enrichment, stand?* Why are they not included in all this talk of who did what?
Click to expand...



Ding ding ding. And we have a winner.


----------



## sitarro

katsteve2012 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.
Click to expand...


I gave you the correct version of that photograph and you're still using the backwards one......you voted for osama didn't you.


----------



## malikc6

Seriously that dog avatar scares the shit out of me...


----------



## katsteve2012

sitarro said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the correct version of that photograph and you're still using the backwards one......you voted for osama didn't you.
Click to expand...


Lol! What does who I voted for have to do with a picture? I tried to upload it here and couldn't get it to transfer, however, I did save it and use as my screen saver on my desktop computer at work.

Thanks!


----------



## Two Thumbs

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



All those men were volunteers.

And no one owes anyone anything from that time.

No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.


----------



## S.J.

Two Thumbs said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.

Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
Click to expand...


Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law. 

Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on. 

Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
Click to expand...


You have a political movement of one. 

Nobody has taken up the issue of reparations more than the racists.  I see no blacks seriously pushing the issue


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political movement of one.
> 
> Nobody has taken up the issue of reparations more than the racists.  I see no blacks seriously pushing the issue
Click to expand...

And???


----------



## Sallow

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a political movement of one.
> 
> Nobody has taken up the issue of reparations more than the racists.  I see no blacks seriously pushing the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And???
Click to expand...


And your thread just got shot down in flames.


----------



## editec

Two Thumbs said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No they were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Union Conscription Act of Mar. 3, 1863, provided that all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 45 were liable to military service, but a drafted man who furnished an acceptable substitute or paid the government 0 was excused.
> 
> Read more: draft riots | Infoplease.com draft riots | Infoplease.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> April 1862, the Confederate States of America found it necessary to pass a conscription act, which drafted men into PACS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Military of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.

Sallow said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a political movement of one.
> 
> Nobody has taken up the issue of reparations more than the racists.  I see no blacks seriously pushing the issue
> 
> 
> 
> And???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your thread just got shot down in flames.
Click to expand...

As usual, Swallow has nothing to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## sitarro

malikc6 said:


> Seriously that dog avatar scares the shit out of me...



Why? It's not one of those asshole pit bulls?


----------



## sitarro

S.J. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
Click to expand...


How about that asshole Louis Fara-con, he screams about reparations every time he whines to the lemmings that follow his racist ass.


----------



## S.J.

sitarro said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about that asshole Louis Fara-con, he screams about reparations every time he whines to the lemmings that follow his racist ass.
Click to expand...

And Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton...


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about that asshole Louis Fara-con, he screams about reparations every time he whines to the lemmings that follow his racist ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton...
Click to expand...


When was the last time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson asked for reparations?

The issue of reparations got some media buzz 20 years ago. It went nowhere

Since then, the only ones keeping the issue alive are a bunch of asshole racist internet poster


----------



## squeeze berry

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
Click to expand...



actually it's wider than that

google reparations movement


----------



## Zarius

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



You are no doubt part of the GOP and I would venture to say a TEA PARTY supporter if not full member. This type of anger toward Blacks defines the Republican party of today(this is *NOT* Lincoln's Republicans). I will not even address this idea because I know the place it comes from. 

You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
Click to expand...


 There is no point to be missed. There are no laws in effect that prohibit him from "asking" but the reality is that he is just one person out of millions, pushing an initiative that has no momentum and will have very little public interest in the foreseeable future. 

There is at least "one" of everything in society, and the one offs do not represent the masses....except to opportunists who take unusual situations and use them to justify their own agendas.


----------



## High_Gravity

S.J. said:


> If today's whites, who had nothing to do with slavery can be made to pay reparations to today's blacks, who were never slaves, why can't today's blacks be made to pay reparations to today's whites for the sacrifices their ancestors made so today's blacks could be free?



Thats the point, nobody should pay anything. Everyone from that time is dead.


----------



## katsteve2012

High_Gravity said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If today's whites, who had nothing to do with slavery can be made to pay reparations to today's blacks, who were never slaves, why can't today's blacks be made to pay reparations to today's whites for the sacrifices their ancestors made so today's blacks could be free?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the point, nobody should pay anything. Everyone from that time is dead.
Click to expand...


That being said, NO ONE is going to pay anything.


----------



## rightwinger

Zarius said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, *almost all were white*.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are no doubt part of the GOP and I would venture to say a TEA PARTY supporter if not full member. This type of anger toward Blacks defines the Republican party of today(this is *NOT* Lincoln's Republicans). I will not even address this idea because I know the place it comes from.
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
Click to expand...


He missed the part about black soldiers fighting in the civil war


----------



## S.J.

Zarius said:


> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.


In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, *almost all were white*.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are no doubt part of the GOP and I would venture to say a TEA PARTY supporter if not full member. This type of anger toward Blacks defines the Republican party of today(this is *NOT* Lincoln's Republicans). I will not even address this idea because I know the place it comes from.
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He missed the part about black soldiers fighting in the civil war
Click to expand...

I said "almost all".


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.
Click to expand...



And you'll pass along your religious bigotry?


----------



## S.J.

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you'll pass along your religious bigotry?
Click to expand...

Just curious, I thought muslims hated dogs, yet you have one for your avatar.  What's up with that?


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you'll pass along your religious bigotry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just curious, I thought muslims hated dogs, yet you have one for your avatar.  What's up with that?
Click to expand...




Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that?


----------



## S.J.

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you'll pass along your religious bigotry?
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, I thought muslims hated dogs, yet you have one for your avatar.  What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that?
Click to expand...

It's ok if you don't want to answer.  Just seems inconsistent with your pro-islamic rhetoric.


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, I thought muslims hated dogs, yet you have one for your avatar.  What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's ok if you don't want to answer.  Just seems inconsistent with your pro-islamic rhetoric.
Click to expand...



It's not ok if you don't want to answer. Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that? Answer, unless you are a complete fucking transsexual, albino, conjoined coward.


----------



## S.J.

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok if you don't want to answer.  Just seems inconsistent with your pro-islamic rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ok if you don't want to answer. Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that? Answer, unless you are a complete fucking transsexual, albino, conjoined coward.
Click to expand...

How old did you say you were?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



The beneficiary of the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment, not the Civil War.


----------



## Toro

Reparations should not be paid to anyone. 

This isn't a serious issue.


----------



## S.J.

OohPooPahDoo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beneficiary of the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was ended by the 13th amendment, not the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Great American History Thirteenth Amendment-


----------



## Zarius

S.J. said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.
Click to expand...


No racial hatred from me. I think everyone on here can see who has that.


----------



## Friends

The only people who benefited from the institution of slavery were the slave owners. These were no more than five percent of whites in the South. White farmers who did not own slaves had difficulty competing with white farmers who did. In practically any trade or profession salaries were higher in the North. Most European immigrants moved to the North, because that was where the economic opportunities were.

Toward the end of the Civil War a number of Northern leaders proposed dividing the land of plantation owners and giving former slaves forty acres and a mule. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln opposed the plan, so nothing came of it.   

That was the time to pay reparations to former slaves. Land should have been given them as back pay for the labor they were never paid for as slaves. Forty acres and a mule should have also been given to landless whites, including veterans of the Confederate Army. That would have given poor Southern whites a stake in Reconstruction, and equal rights for blacks. 

It is too late now. Reparations would be paid for from the taxes of whites who had in no way benefited from slavery, and who were not responsible for the creation of the Confederacy.


----------



## Unkotare

S.J. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok if you don't want to answer.  Just seems inconsistent with your pro-islamic rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ok if you don't want to answer. Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that? Answer, unless you are a complete fucking transsexual, albino, conjoined coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old did you say you were?
Click to expand...



I didn't say. Now answer my question, coward.


----------



## S.J.

Unkotare said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ok if you don't want to answer. Are all transsexual, albino, conjoined twins illogical morons like you? What's up with that? Answer, unless you are a complete fucking transsexual, albino, conjoined coward.
> 
> 
> 
> How old did you say you were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say. Now answer my question, coward.
Click to expand...

Fuck you.  You want to contribute something to this thread or are you just gonna troll, asswipe?


----------



## katsteve2012

rightwinger said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, *almost all were white*.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are no doubt part of the GOP and I would venture to say a TEA PARTY supporter if not full member. This type of anger toward Blacks defines the Republican party of today(this is *NOT* Lincoln's Republicans). I will not even address this idea because I know the place it comes from.
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He missed the part about black soldiers fighting in the civil war
Click to expand...


The issues of emancipation and military service were intertwined from the onset of the Civil War. News from Fort Sumter set off a rush by free black men to enlist in U.S. military units. They were turned away, however, because a Federal law dating from 1792 barred Negroes from bearing arms for the U.S. army (although they had served in the American Revolution and in the War of 1812). In Boston disappointed would-be volunteers met and passed a resolution requesting that the Government modify its laws to permit their enlistment.

The Lincoln administration wrestled with the idea of authorizing the recruitment of black troops, concerned that such a move would prompt the border states to secede. When Gen. John C. Frémont (photo citation: 111-B-3756) in Missouri and Gen. David Hunter (photo citation: 111-B-3580) in South Carolina issued proclamations that emancipated slaves in their military regions and permitted them to enlist, their superiors sternly revoked their orders. By mid-1862, however, the escalating number of former slaves (contrabands), the declining number of white volunteers, and the increasingly pressing personnel needs of the Union Army pushed the Government into reconsidering the ban.

As a result, on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, freeing slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Two days later, slavery was abolished in the territories of the United States, and on July 22 President Lincoln (photo citation: 111-B-2323) presented the preliminary draft of the Emancipation Proclamation to his Cabinet. After the Union Army turned back Lee's first invasion of the North at Antietam, MD, and the Emancipation Proclamation was subsequently announced, black recruitment was pursued in earnest. Volunteers from South Carolina, Tennessee, and Massachusetts filled the first authorized black regiments. Recruitment was slow until black leaders such as Frederick Douglass (photo citation: 200-FL-22) encouraged black men to become soldiers to ensure eventual full citizenship. (Two of Douglass's own sons contributed to the war effort.) Volunteers began to respond, and in May 1863 the Government established the Bureau of Colored Troops to manage the burgeoning numbers of black soldiers.

*By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war30,000 of infection or disease.* Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman (photo citation: 200-HN-PIO-1), who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.

*Because of prejudice against them, black units were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been. Nevertheless, the soldiers served with distinction in a number of battles. Black infantrymen fought gallantly at Milliken's Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. The July 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, SC, in which the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops, was memorably dramatized in the film Glory. By war's end, 16 black soldiers had been awarded the Medal of Honor for their valor.*

In addition to the perils of war faced by all Civil War soldiers, black soldiers faced additional problems stemming from racial prejudice. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and discriminatory practices permeated the U.S. military. Segregated units were formed with black enlisted men and typically commanded by white officers and black noncommissioned officers. The 54th Massachusetts was commanded by Robert Shaw and the 1st South Carolina by Thomas Wentworth Higginsonboth white. In June 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Black soldiers received the same rations and supplies. In addition, they received comparable medical care.

The black troops, however, faced greater peril than white troops when captured by the Confederate Army. In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it.

The document featured with this article is a recruiting poster directed at black men during the Civil War. It refers to efforts by the Lincoln administration to provide equal pay for black soldiers and equal protection for black POWs. The original poster is located in the Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1780's1917, Record Group 94.

Article Citation

Freeman, Elsie, Wynell Burroughs Schamel, and Jean West. "The Fight for Equal Rights: A Recruiting Poster for Black Soldiers in the Civil War." Social Education 56, 2 (February 1992): 118-120. [Revised and updated in 1999 by Budge Weidman.]

Black Soldiers in the Civil War


----------



## regent

And what of the transportation from Africa to America, who paid for that? And what of  trades they were taught, I mean learning how to pick cotton requires a teacher and teachers had be paid. They were probably union teachers so they were paid lots of money.  And all the other charges: food, lodging, medical care and so forth can all be added to the debt.


----------



## Zarius

regent said:


> And what of the transportation from Africa to America, who paid for that? And what of  trades they were taught, I mean learning how to pick cotton requires a teacher and teachers had be paid. They were probably union teachers so they were paid lots of money.  And all the other charges: food, lodging, medical care and so forth can all be added to the debt.



I have a question for you,are you now or have you ever supported or been a member of the Tea Party or the GOP?

Im sure I will be shocked by the answer.

Not all Republicans are _but all_ sure are Republicans.


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> And what of the transportation from Africa to America, who paid for that? And what of  trades they were taught, I mean learning how to pick cotton requires a teacher and teachers had be paid. They were probably union teachers so they were paid lots of money.  And all the other charges: food, lodging, medical care and so forth can all be added to the debt.


Very true

And as any racist worth his salt will tell you, we rescued them from the jungle


----------



## Sallow

S.J. said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your thread just got shot down in flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, Swallow has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Click to expand...


And I am not going to contribute jiz to your mouth, cum gargler..

No matter how much you beg for a swallow.

So go back to servicing pro basketball players..like Sarah Palin.

Maybe you can find your "reparations" there.


----------



## katsteve2012

Sallow said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your thread just got shot down in flames.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, Swallow has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am not going to contribute jiz to your mouth, cum gargler..
> 
> No matter how much you beg for a swallow.
> 
> So go back to servicing pro basketball players..like Sarah Palin.
> 
> Maybe you can find your "reparations" there.
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.

Sallow said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your thread just got shot down in flames.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, Swallow has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am not going to contribute jiz to your mouth, cum gargler..
> 
> No matter how much you beg for a swallow.
> 
> So go back to servicing pro basketball players..like Sarah Palin.
> 
> Maybe you can find your "reparations" there.
Click to expand...

Note:  You STILL have nothing to contribute.


----------



## Unkotare

Wow, Swallow sure gets moody when her business is down.


----------



## king.solomon

Is this a serious topic? Seriously?


----------



## squeeze berry

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what of the transportation from Africa to America, who paid for that? And what of  trades they were taught, I mean learning how to pick cotton requires a teacher and teachers had be paid. They were probably union teachers so they were paid lots of money.  And all the other charges: food, lodging, medical care and so forth can all be added to the debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true
> 
> And as any racist worth his salt will tell you, we rescued them from the jungle
Click to expand...


and any racist worth his salt will admit to want to get even with whitey ASAP


----------



## S.J.

The fact is that black people sold other black people into slavery, and white people fought and died to free them.  Deal with it.


----------



## Huey

Toro said:


> Reparations should not be paid to anyone.
> 
> This isn't a serious issue.


 
You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.


----------



## S.J.

Huey said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reparations should not be paid to anyone.
> 
> This isn't a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.
Click to expand...

"Performed" atrocities?  Sounds like you're talking about a play.


----------



## Toro

Huey said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reparations should not be paid to anyone.
> 
> This isn't a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.
Click to expand...


I'll pay you reparations.

But first, come mow my lawn and weed my garden.  Then, I'll pay you $50 in reparations.


----------



## Cuyo

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



Sure thing, ya dipshit!  While we're at it, can we throw you in a cage, release you, then demand to be paid for the favor?


----------



## IanC

why would you ask for reparations from a group that is already having difficulties in achieving social success? they need more help not a penalty. we should stop saying that they _deserve_ help because of past grievances though, and just help them because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## S.J.

Cuyo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, ya dipshit!  While we're at it, can we throw you in a cage, release you, then demand to be paid for the favor?
Click to expand...

The ones who freed you were not the same ones who threw you in a cage.


----------



## S.J.

IanC said:


> why would you ask for reparations from a group that is already having difficulties in achieving social success? they need more help not a penalty. we should stop saying that they _deserve_ help because of past grievances though, and just help them because it is the right thing to do.


They've had enough help.  How long do the taxpayers have to support them?


----------



## Cuyo

S.J. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, ya dipshit!  While we're at it, can we throw you in a cage, release you, then demand to be paid for the favor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones who freed you were not the same ones who threw you in a cage.
Click to expand...


I can't believe I'm going to continue this idiotic conversation... But... Psst... The ones that freed you are not the same ones who would receive the reparations.  They're all dead.


----------



## S.J.

Cuyo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, ya dipshit!  While we're at it, can we throw you in a cage, release you, then demand to be paid for the favor?
> 
> 
> 
> The ones who freed you were not the same ones who threw you in a cage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe I'm going to continue this idiotic conversation... But... Psst... The ones that freed you are not the same ones who would receive the reparations.  They're all dead.
Click to expand...

Same goes for blacks who want reparations.


----------



## poet

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Wait for it. They had no business buying Africans as slaves in the first place.


----------



## poet

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.
> 
> I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would.
> 
> It's an interesting thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing "interesting" about it.
> 
> Slavery was a crime of epic proportions. It should have never happened in the first place. And Certainly not for over a century in a country that purports to be the gold standard in terms of Human Rights. Europe was already done with it for quite some time.
> 
> If anything, the slaves should have been compensated for all of that..and for a time there was legislation that was making it's way through congress to do exactly that.
> 
> However, the focus shifted to reconstruction and while that was important, it also allowed for the racists to get a foothold back into politics. Hence Jim Crow and a plethora of abuses that followed the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist Democrats. Jim Crow laws went into effect in 1876 only because enough Democrats won office during and after reconstruction. Seems to me Democrats owe reparations to blacks.
Click to expand...


They made reparations.....they "changed their tune". Equivalent to an apology to me.


----------



## poet

Huey said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reparations should not be paid to anyone.
> 
> This isn't a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.
Click to expand...

BS. I would never accept blood money. There isn't enough gold in Fort Knox to cover the debt owed. So I forgive it. Keep it.


----------



## S.J.

poet said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Wait for it. They had no business buying Africans as slaves in the first place.
Click to expand...

Democrats are still buying African/Americans as slaves today through welfare.


----------



## Two Thumbs

New reputation!
Hi, you have received 0 reputation points from poet.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:


Regards,
poet


give a comment so I know if you negged me or not.


----------



## poet

Two Thumbs said:


> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received 0 reputation points from poet.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> 
> 
> Regards,
> poet
> 
> 
> give a comment so I know if you negged me or not.



Post #29 was moronic, so you figure it out.


----------



## Two Thumbs

poet said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received 0 reputation points from poet.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> 
> 
> Regards,
> poet
> 
> 
> give a comment so I know if you negged me or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #29 was moronic, so you figure it out.
Click to expand...


All those men were volunteers.  saw the link showing that men were drafted, so I learned something.

And no one owes anyone anything from that time.  turth

No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave truth

so what's moronic?


----------



## poet

Two Thumbs said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received 0 reputation points from poet.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> 
> 
> Regards,
> poet
> 
> 
> give a comment so I know if you negged me or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #29 was moronic, so you figure it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.  saw the link showing that men were drafted, so I learned something.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.  turth
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave truth
> 
> so what's moronic?
Click to expand...


Who are you to say? No one. Moving on.


----------



## Two Thumbs

poet said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #29 was moronic, so you figure it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.  saw the link showing that men were drafted, so I learned something.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.  turth
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave truth
> 
> so what's moronic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you to say? No one. Moving on.
Click to expand...


Allow me to translate that from buffoon into human;

dammit, he's right, but I'm a coward, not a man, so I'll insult him.




John Kerry on buffoon


----------



## Pheonixops

mudwhistle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.
> 
> I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would.
> 
> It's an interesting thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing "interesting" about it.
> 
> Slavery was a crime of epic proportions. It should have never happened in the first place. And Certainly not for over a century in a country that purports to be the gold standard in terms of Human Rights. Europe was already done with it for quite some time.
> 
> If anything, the slaves should have been compensated for all of that..and for a time there was legislation that was making it's way through congress to do exactly that.
> 
> However, the focus shifted to reconstruction and while that was important, it also allowed for the racists to get a foothold back into politics. Hence Jim Crow and a plethora of abuses that followed the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist Democrats. Jim Crow laws went into effect in 1876 only because enough Democrats won office during and after reconstruction. Seems to me Democrats owe reparations to blacks.
Click to expand...


Yep, those conservative Democrats who supported slavery and Jim Crow were real bastards.


----------



## westwall

Sallow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, maybe if enough people agree on the subject they might be able to string this one out as much as anything the left is constantly harping about.
> 
> I seriously doubt it though. The people that could probably never would.
> 
> It's an interesting thought though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing "interesting" about it.
> 
> Slavery was a crime of epic proportions. It should have never happened in the first place. And Certainly not for over a century in a country that purports to be the gold standard in terms of Human Rights. Europe was already done with it for quite some time.
> 
> If anything, the slaves should have been compensated for all of that..and for a time there was legislation that was making it's way through congress to do exactly that.
> 
> However, the focus shifted to reconstruction and while that was important, it also allowed for the racists to get a foothold back into politics. Hence Jim Crow and a plethora of abuses that followed the civil war.
Click to expand...







Some were compensated.  However the constant bleating for US to pay reparations to people who were not slaves is offensive on its face.   My family lost three fathers/brothers, 
fighting for the release of slaves.  You expect ME to give money to people who didn't suffer a thing?

You're crazy...


----------



## MaryL

This is amusing, but pointless. NOBODY owes anyone reparations, and, besides, there is no rational way to figure out the balance, not in any way. We live. We suffer now. None of us choses our past. Deal with it.


----------



## Pheonixops

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that didn't stop John Conyers from seeking reparations for slavery.
> 
> Tracing Center | Rep. John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
Click to expand...


So what if someone is asking for reparations, they have a right to do so, it doesn't mean that it's going to happen. This "the Blacks want reparations" is a bunch of crap propagated by bigots who have a racial chip on their shoulders.


----------



## Pheonixops

S.J. said:


> The fact is that black people sold other black people into slavery, *and white people fought and died to free them.  Deal with it.



You left out the part about; * white people buying , enslaving, and creating a whole bunch of industries by enslaving  them.


----------



## S.J.

Pheonixops said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that black people sold other black people into slavery, *and white people fought and died to free them.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about; * white people buying , enslaving, and creating a whole bunch of industries by enslaving  them.
Click to expand...

White people wouldn't have been buying if black people hadn't been selling.


----------



## westwall

Pheonixops said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that black people sold other black people into slavery, *and white people fought and died to free them.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about; * white people buying , enslaving, and creating a whole bunch of industries by enslaving  them.
Click to expand...






You left out the part of *RICH* white people buying and selling.  The VAST MAJORITY of the whites here NEVER bought or sold anyone.

Funny how you all seem to ignore that.


----------



## westwall

Pheonixops said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Conyers introduced this bill for the first time in 1989, and it still has not been passed into law.
> 
> Mr. Conyers is now 84 years old, and it dos not appear to be likely that he will have many more chances to try. And no one appears to be stepping forward to carry on.
> 
> Dead issue, being pushed by ONE soon to be dead man, and swallowed hook line and sinker by an organization that increases membership by inciting paranoia.
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if it will pass or not, the point is that there are those who are asking for reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if someone is asking for reparations, they have a right to do so, it doesn't mean that it's going to happen. This "the Blacks want reparations" is a bunch of crap propagated by bigots who have a racial chip on their shoulders.
Click to expand...







Really?  They don't look like white bigots to me...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z84nFEYh4Ck]Black Reparation - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6PBbbnPwfw]Reparations needed -- poor blacks were never helped - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## poet

Two Thumbs said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those men were volunteers.  saw the link showing that men were drafted, so I learned something.
> 
> And no one owes anyone anything from that time.  turth
> 
> No black alive knows anyone that knew someone that was a slave truth
> 
> so what's moronic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to say? No one. Moving on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate that from buffoon into human;
> 
> dammit, he's right, but I'm a coward, not a man, so I'll insult him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Kerry on buffoon
Click to expand...



Buffoons are human....have you ever seen a beast that was a buffoon? Didn't think so. 
Water off a duck's back, though.


----------



## poet

MaryL said:


> This is amusing, but pointless. NOBODY owes anyone reparations, and, besides, there is no rational way to figure out the balance, not in any way. We live. We suffer now. None of us choses our past. Deal with it.



Would somebody tell me who is asking for reparations?I want to kick 'em.


----------



## S.J.

poet said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is amusing, but pointless. NOBODY owes anyone reparations, and, besides, there is no rational way to figure out the balance, not in any way. We live. We suffer now. None of us choses our past. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would somebody tell me who is asking for reparations?I want to kick 'em.
Click to expand...

Ok, you can start by kicking the shit out of Louis Farrakhan.


----------



## tjvh

Mr Clean said:


> But, but, but  . . .
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.
> 
> (At least that's what the rednecks want us to believe.)



It wasn't... Lincoln brought the slavery issue into it when the North was losing steam. Read a history book. And I was born and raised in New York in case you were going to attack me like you did others by calling me a redneck. Rednecks?... Chalk up another example of the oh so tolerant left.


----------



## tjvh

poet said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is amusing, but pointless. NOBODY owes anyone reparations, and, besides, there is no rational way to figure out the balance, not in any way. We live. We suffer now. None of us choses our past. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would somebody tell me who is asking for reparations?I want to kick 'em.
Click to expand...


Sorry Ms. Poit, but I'd venture to guess that you couldn't kick a tire, much less someone seeking reparations for something they never endured.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that asshole Louis Fara-con, he screams about reparations every time he whines to the lemmings that follow his racist ass.
> 
> 
> 
> And Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson asked for reparations?
> 
> The issue of reparations got some media buzz 20 years ago. It went nowhere
> 
> Since then, the only ones keeping the issue alive are a bunch of asshole racist internet poster
Click to expand...


2001 - NPR reported on past and current efforts for reparations.
NPR: Slave Reparations

2002 -.SocialFunds.com -- Late last month, African-American attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann filed a class-action lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court seeking reparation of profits gained through slavery by three prominent U.S. companies. The 21-page lawsuit charged Hartford-based insurer Aetna Inc. (ticker: AET), Virginia-based railway company CSX Corp. (CSX), and FleetBoston Financial Corp. (FBF) with specific economic enrichment from slavery. The lawsuit represents a new tactic in the reparations movement, which in the past sought compensation from state and federal governments, by refocusing responsibility on corporate America. 
Federal Lawsuit Seeks Slave Reparations from Three Companies

And John Conyers has not given up:
2009 - He reintroduced his legislation for study of reparations yet again as he has done in very new Congress for 20 years.  So far the legislation has gone nowhere.
factcheck.org : Slavery Reparations?

2003 - I think that affirmative action is going to be the first point, and reparations, certainly, is something I support and am able to deal with in any forum--Al Sharpton
Al Sharpton on the Issues

Candidate Obama in 2008 was opposed to reparations.  But there are rumors, only rumors, that he might be in favor of reparations in a second term.
Would Obama Support Reparations in a Second Term? | FrontPage Magazine

2013:  "Congress must act now beyond the symbol of medals to the substance of justice and compensation," Jackson wrote in his column. "The victims of Sept. 16, 1963, and the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, are justly due reparations. Sarah Collins Rudolph is in the lineage of those to whom our nation is in debt."--Jesse Jackson
Jesse Jackson: Reparations due to 'fifth little girl' who survived '63 bombing | al.com

All this is to say that the issue continues to be alive and well, and RW can't stick the 'racist rightwing' or even 'racist asshole internet posters' with the reason it is.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

We live in a country where the sins of the father are not visited upon the son. This isn't the middle east. The child of a murderer doesn't go to jail because of his heritage. I'm aware that fringe elements in society say stupid things but reparations will never happen.


----------



## poet

JohnL.Burke said:


> We live in a country where the sins of the father are not visited upon the son. This isn't the middle east. The child of a murderer doesn't go to jail because of his heritage. I'm aware that fringe elements in society say stupid things but reparations will never happen.



Acknowledging sins and repenting is not the same as paying reparations. A sincere apology goes a long way.


----------



## Gracie

Not to the likes of you, bub. YOU try apologizing for being a hateful bigot and maybe people will lighten up on you.
And I didn't own slaves so I have not a damn thing to apologize for. Nor did my ancestors. We had our own bullshit dished to us. Hubby's family is Native American. Mine is Irish and German. So blacks are not the only ones that were treated badly.

You're a jerk. You owe us ALL an apology.


----------



## rightwinger

Foxfyre said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson asked for reparations?
> 
> The issue of reparations got some media buzz 20 years ago. It went nowhere
> 
> Since then, the only ones keeping the issue alive are a bunch of asshole racist internet poster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2001 - NPR reported on past and current efforts for reparations.
> NPR: Slave Reparations
> 
> 2002 -.SocialFunds.com -- Late last month, African-American attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann filed a class-action lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court seeking reparation of profits gained through slavery by three prominent U.S. companies. The 21-page lawsuit charged Hartford-based insurer Aetna Inc. (ticker: AET), Virginia-based railway company CSX Corp. (CSX), and FleetBoston Financial Corp. (FBF) with specific economic enrichment from slavery. The lawsuit represents a new tactic in the reparations movement, which in the past sought compensation from state and federal governments, by refocusing responsibility on corporate America.
> Federal Lawsuit Seeks Slave Reparations from Three Companies
> 
> And John Conyers has not given up:
> 2009 - He reintroduced his legislation for study of reparations yet again as he has done in very new Congress for 20 years.  So far the legislation has gone nowhere.
> factcheck.org : Slavery Reparations?
> 
> 2003 - I think that affirmative action is going to be the first point, and reparations, certainly, is something I support and am able to deal with in any forum--Al Sharpton
> Al Sharpton on the Issues
> 
> Candidate Obama in 2008 was opposed to reparations.  But there are rumors, only rumors, that he might be in favor of reparations in a second term.
> Would Obama Support Reparations in a Second Term? | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 2013:  "Congress must act now beyond the symbol of medals to the substance of justice and compensation," Jackson wrote in his column. "The victims of Sept. 16, 1963, and the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, are justly due reparations. Sarah Collins Rudolph is in the lineage of those to whom our nation is in debt."--Jesse Jackson
> Jesse Jackson: Reparations due to 'fifth little girl' who survived '63 bombing | al.com
> 
> All this is to say that the issue continues to be alive and well, and RW can't stick the 'racist rightwing' or even 'racist asshole internet posters' with the reason it is.
Click to expand...


So it hasn't been brought up in ten years

I can see why we need a thread on it


----------



## jan

> For the south, it was. For the north, slavery and federalism. I guess you should try thinking next time.



Read the secession papers from the southern states...within the writings you will read over and over again that slavery was at the forefront.

States rights?  Yeah...states rights to own slaves.


----------



## Foxfyre

rightwinger said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson asked for reparations?
> 
> The issue of reparations got some media buzz 20 years ago. It went nowhere
> 
> Since then, the only ones keeping the issue alive are a bunch of asshole racist internet poster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2001 - NPR reported on past and current efforts for reparations.
> NPR: Slave Reparations
> 
> 2002 -.SocialFunds.com -- Late last month, African-American attorney Deadria Farmer-Paellmann filed a class-action lawsuit in a Brooklyn federal court seeking reparation of profits gained through slavery by three prominent U.S. companies. The 21-page lawsuit charged Hartford-based insurer Aetna Inc. (ticker: AET), Virginia-based railway company CSX Corp. (CSX), and FleetBoston Financial Corp. (FBF) with specific economic enrichment from slavery. The lawsuit represents a new tactic in the reparations movement, which in the past sought compensation from state and federal governments, by refocusing responsibility on corporate America.
> Federal Lawsuit Seeks Slave Reparations from Three Companies
> 
> And John Conyers has not given up:
> 2009 - He reintroduced his legislation for study of reparations yet again as he has done in very new Congress for 20 years.  So far the legislation has gone nowhere.
> factcheck.org : Slavery Reparations?
> 
> 2003 - I think that affirmative action is going to be the first point, and reparations, certainly, is something I support and am able to deal with in any forum--Al Sharpton
> Al Sharpton on the Issues
> 
> Candidate Obama in 2008 was opposed to reparations.  But there are rumors, only rumors, that he might be in favor of reparations in a second term.
> Would Obama Support Reparations in a Second Term? | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 2013:  "Congress must act now beyond the symbol of medals to the substance of justice and compensation," Jackson wrote in his column. "The victims of Sept. 16, 1963, and the victims of Sept. 11, 2001, are justly due reparations. Sarah Collins Rudolph is in the lineage of those to whom our nation is in debt."--Jesse Jackson
> Jesse Jackson: Reparations due to 'fifth little girl' who survived '63 bombing | al.com
> 
> All this is to say that the issue continues to be alive and well, and RW can't stick the 'racist rightwing' or even 'racist asshole internet posters' with the reason it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it hasn't been brought up in ten years
> 
> I can see why we need a thread on it
Click to expand...


You don't read well do you.  Or maybe it's a math thing.   But oh well.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

poet said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a country where the sins of the father are not visited upon the son. This isn't the middle east. The child of a murderer doesn't go to jail because of his heritage. I'm aware that fringe elements in society say stupid things but reparations will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledging sins and repenting is not the same as paying reparations. A sincere apology goes a long way.
Click to expand...


 What would the apology be for? Do you mean people apologizing for their ancestors? My parents were from Canada and their parents were from Ireland. Should I apologize because there were slave owners who had the same color skin as I? Should the black community apologize for O.J.? I understand acknowledging the immorality and evil of slavery but I don't understand why an apology for the actions of strangers is required, or even wanted.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gracie said:


> Not to the likes of you, bub. YOU try apologizing for being a hateful bigot and maybe people will lighten up on you.
> And I didn't own slaves so I have not a damn thing to apologize for. Nor did my ancestors. We had our own bullshit dished to us. Hubby's family is Native American. Mine is Irish and German. So blacks are not the only ones that were treated badly.
> 
> You're a jerk. You owe us ALL an apology.



And even if your ancestors did own slaves--at least one of mine did--what part of that would any of us have now?

From the words of Walter Williams, a descendant of slaves brought from somewhere on the Ivory Coast:



> . . . .We might also recognize that a large percentage of today's Americans, be they of European, Asian, African or Latin ancestry, don't even go back three or four generations. Are they to be held accountable and taxed for slavery and why?
> 
> Then there's the fact that white slave owners aren't the only villains in the piece. In Africa, Moslems dominated the slave trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. Africans also engaged in slave trade with Europeans. In fact, there was plantation slavery in some parts of Africa, such as the Sudan, Zanzibar and Egypt. Thus, a natural question arises: Do reparations advocates hold those who sold blacks into slavery subject to reparations payments? After all slavery, of the scale seen in the western hemisphere, would have been all but impossible without the help of Africans and Arabs. Incidentally, President Clinton apologizing for slavery in Africa, of all places, is stupid -- apologizing to descendants of slave traders for slavery in America.
> 
> Though it's not politically correct to say, today's blacks benefitted immensely from the horrors suffered by our ancestors. You say: "What do you mean, Williams? Would you run that by us?" Most black Americans are in the solid middle class. In fact, if we totaled the income black Americans earned each year, and thought of ourselves as a separate nation, we'd be the 14th or 15th richest nation. Even the 34 percent of blacks considered to be poor are fairly well off by world standards. Had there not been slavery, and today's blacks were born in Africa instead of the United States, we'd be living in the same poverty that today's Africans live in and under the same brutal regimes.
> 
> If reparations were to be made, then what? Would reparations payments accomplish what the 6 trillion dollars spent since 1965 on the War on Poverty didn't? Let's face the fact that there's not one thing anyone can do to change the past. There's a lot we can do about the future. Dwelling on the past comes at the expense of preparing for the future. . . .
> Walter Williams


----------



## American_Jihad

Bump...
*Bernie Sanders Will Apologize for Slavery, Offer Reparations *
April 7, 2016
Daniel Greenfield





  Bernie Sanders has no shot whatsoever with black voters no matter how he humiliates himself. But that won't stop him from trying...

Bernie Sanders committed tonight to formally apologizing for slavery on behalf of the United States if he becomes president. 

Sanders told heavily black audience that Tindley Temple United Methodist Church, 'There's nothing that anybody can do to undo the deaths and misery, how many people we don't even know who died on the way over here in the ships.'

To be fair, Bernie Sanders doesn't know much of anything, from how he's going to break up the banks to the casualty numbers in Gaza. He's just like a dog chasing the White House. He wouldn't know what to do if he caught it. Except apologize for an event that his ancestors weren't even in the country for.

...

Bernie Sanders Will Apologize for Slavery, Offer Reparations


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
Click to expand...

Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
Click to expand...

Yes cave chimp. 

First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
Click to expand...

Almost as silly as you asking for reparations for something that was never done to you, right, porch monkey?


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as silly as you asking for reparations for something that was never done to you, right, porch monkey?
Click to expand...

I never asked for reparations cave chimp.  I see you couldnt answer my question. Youre a dumb melanin lacking monkey but until just now I didnt really know just how fucking dumb you were..


----------



## Asclepias

tjvh said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, but  . . .
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.
> 
> (At least that's what the rednecks want us to believe.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't... Lincoln brought the slavery issue into it when the North was losing steam. Read a history book. And I was born and raised in New York in case you were going to attack me like you did others by calling me a redneck. Rednecks?... Chalk up another example of the oh so tolerant left.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The only reason slavery was brought into it was to punish the crackas where it hurt most.  If it was about slavery for the north why was slavery still allowed in the states that sided with the Union like West Virginia?


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as silly as you asking for reparations for something that was never done to you, right, porch monkey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never asked for reparations cave chimp.*  I see you couldnt answer my question. Youre a dumb melanin lacking monkey but until just now I didnt really know just how fucking dumb you were..
Click to expand...

You're a liar.  You've called for it many times, crack head.


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost as silly as you asking for reparations for something that was never done to you, right, porch monkey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I never asked for reparations cave chimp.*  I see you couldnt answer my question. Youre a dumb melanin lacking monkey but until just now I didnt really know just how fucking dumb you were..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar.  You've called for it many times, crack head.
Click to expand...

So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?  I know its embarrassing being exposed for being a dumb little monkey. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




When ever in the history of the US has the military been paid reparations? Your a fucking idiot cave chimp so I know you wont be able to answer the question.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
Click to expand...



Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.

But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.

Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.

You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
Click to expand...

From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?


Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?  Everyone knows you're a welfare case who would jump at the chance for another government handout.


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
Click to expand...


Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.


----------



## Syriusly

I look forward to Trump incorporating your suggestion into his campaign platform.


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
Click to expand...

You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
Click to expand...


For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.

And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?


----------



## FA_Q2

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
Click to expand...

It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:



Asclepias said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One way or the other? Really? How? Where are you at now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes one way or another. It can be protracted or it can be quick.
> 
> Really.
> 
> How? You'll figure it out.
> 
> In my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much dough are blacks asking per person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the argument has merit now? Before you seemed incensed at the very thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> 
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
Click to expand...


----------



## L.K.Eder

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


Holy fucking fuck.


----------



## Toro

What a sec?

What about those 4 black guys who fought for the Confederacy all the hicks mention in the Civil War threads?


----------



## L.K.Eder

I think this horrible new black panther dude in philly should pay for all of it.


----------



## MaryL

poet said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is amusing, but pointless. NOBODY owes anyone reparations, and, besides, there is no rational way to figure out the balance, not in any way. We live. We suffer now. None of us choses our past. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would somebody tell me who is asking for reparations?I want to kick 'em.
Click to expand...


There are those in America that believe  ancestors of slaves deserve reparations, the "Twenty acres and a mules"crowd. I like Bernie. The apology for slavery thing is nice, but it might open up a legal Pandora's box, and to me is absurd, too boot. I am saying it won't help and may make thinks worse. Don't do it, Bernie.


----------



## S.J.

FA_Q2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One way or the other? Really? How? Where are you at now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes one way or another. It can be protracted or it can be quick.
> 
> Really.
> 
> How? You'll figure it out.
> 
> In my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much dough are blacks asking per person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the argument has merit now? Before you seemed incensed at the very thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I know he's argued for reparations many times, I just didn't feel like looking for examples.  I doubt if he'll come back to the thread now.that you've posted some of them.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
Click to expand...

Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.


----------



## S.J.

L.K.Eder said:


> I think this horrible new black panther dude in philly should pay for all of it.


Show us his picture so we can laugh at him.


----------



## MaryL

I think right handed people owe reparations to left handed folks, you owe us, Admit it. All the inconvenience and down right prejudice to us lefties. You righties got it made.


----------



## Asclepias

FA_Q2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One way or the other? Really? How? Where are you at now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes one way or another. It can be protracted or it can be quick.
> 
> Really.
> 
> How? You'll figure it out.
> 
> In my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much dough are blacks asking per person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the argument has merit now? Before you seemed incensed at the very thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is a difference between arguing the merits of reparations and asking for them as the retarded baboon SJ claimed. Only an idiot would think white people would support reparations. Try again.


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why cant you find a quote of me calling for it and why do you keep deflecting?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> One way or the other? Really? How? Where are you at now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes one way or another. It can be protracted or it can be quick.
> 
> Really.
> 
> How? You'll figure it out.
> 
> In my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how much dough are blacks asking per person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying the argument has merit now? Before you seemed incensed at the very thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know he's argued for reparations many times, I just didn't feel like looking for examples.  I doubt if he'll come back to the thread now.that you've posted some of them.
Click to expand...

Sorry cave chimp. I'm right here to laugh at you. Well you claimed I asked for them not argued the merits. You didnt feel like looking for examples because you know I never asked for them. What would I look like asking cave chimps for reparations? Its not like you or anyone else arguing against it could afford it.


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I spend time looking for a quote from you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes one way or another. It can be protracted or it can be quick.
> 
> Really.
> 
> How? You'll figure it out.
> 
> In my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the argument has merit now? Before you seemed incensed at the very thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know he's argued for reparations many times, I just didn't feel like looking for examples.  I doubt if he'll come back to the thread now.that you've posted some of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry cave chimp. I'm right here to laugh at you. Well you claimed I asked for them not argued the merits. You didnt feel like looking for examples because you know I never asked for them. What would I look like asking cave chimps for reparations? Its not like you or anyone else arguing against it could afford it.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, keep dancing, it's what you people do best, isn't it?


----------



## Asclepias

S.J. said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because everyone knows if you could find it you would post it? Youre done. I'm putting you on timeout cave chimp.
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming I would look for it but you would have to be worth the time in order for me to do that.  You're not.  Sorry to be the one to have to tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really is not that hard.  Took me less than one minute.  I am sure there are more and better ones but the point is easily made with a single example of him arguing for reparations:
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if extend food stamps, welfare and AA for another generation? That should cover it.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people already have that. We dont want the reparations white people gave to themselves. We want what was owed to our ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc-hole, you have no clue at all, do you? You pretend to know it all, but in the end, you're not close to getting a check, and probably not even working on it, just complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you start calling me names in anger that just lets me know you are frustrated.  I'm not pretending to know anything. I'm laying out the case for reparations. You can disagree all you want to but dont get emotional. it makes you look silly. In the end reparations will be paid one way or another. No I am not working on it.  Others are.  No I'm not complaining. I am discussing the OP. You white people are complaining about my stance on the issue.  By far the whites on here are crying about everything regarding reparations to the point they cant even stay on topic and discuss the issue without calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious at what you folks are asking for. So do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cant speak for everyone that is Black.  I have a figure in mind but I have yet to see anyone not Black agree that the idea of reparations has merit.  I dont discuss money until we have agreement on the principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing no one is alive from the war between the states then I would say no for any payment. If someone was still alive from that war, then yes, but seeing they are not, then no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dont have to be alive to be paid reparations. Its a debt owed to the surviving members of the person wronged. To be honest it shouldnt even be called reparations. It should be called back pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know he's argued for reparations many times, I just didn't feel like looking for examples.  I doubt if he'll come back to the thread now.that you've posted some of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry cave chimp. I'm right here to laugh at you. Well you claimed I asked for them not argued the merits. You didnt feel like looking for examples because you know I never asked for them. What would I look like asking cave chimps for reparations? Its not like you or anyone else arguing against it could afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha, keep dancing, it's what you people do best, isn't it?
Click to expand...

We do a lot of things best. One of the things I do best is make you look like a fool. Now that you are finished deflecting please show us anywhere in history the US military was paid reparations. Stop stalling. If you stall some more I will withhold your allotment of bananas.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why its so hard for me to take white people seriously. What an utterly fucking idiotic post.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.
Click to expand...


I didn't say "they switched". 

The question presented to you was are you stating that the parties are identical to the parties as they were during slavery and Jim Crow?


Not certain how much more direct I can be.


----------



## S.J.

Asclepias said:


> We do a lot of things best.


Dance, and cash welfare checks.  Oh yeah, you're pretty good at panhandling too.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What, exactly is not accurate about any of that?  Be specific and back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes cave chimp.
> 
> First you tell me when in the history of the US military has anyone paid the descendants of soldiers that died fighting for anything. I knew you were a dumb monkey but this takes the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "they switched".
> 
> The question presented to you was are you stating that the parties are identical to the parties as they were during slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> 
> Not certain how much more direct I can be.
Click to expand...

Democrats have always been the party of slavery, whether it be chains of iron or chains of welfare, and blacks have always gone willingly.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the war over "State's Rights" was fought to preserve the union and industrialize America. Slaves became obsolete, and became "free" by default.
> 
> But they were not really freed by these "noble humanitarians".....LMAO.
> 
> *Jim Crow took over where slavery left off , and stayed in effect until the 1960's.*
> 
> You're right. This post gets the dipstick award of the week...but consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "they switched".
> 
> The question presented to you was are you stating that the parties are identical to the parties as they were during slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> 
> Not certain how much more direct I can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been the party of slavery, whether it be chains of iron or chains of welfare, and blacks have always gone willingly.
Click to expand...



It is obvious that you rely on a few talking points that you have heard or have been told and then like a parrot you repeat them over and over instead of reading, researching data from different sources and then arriving at an opinion that is actually your own.


The ideologies of the two parties have definitely evolved over time, and unless you are a myopic dunce who never took an American government class, you would understand that.

Here is just one of many articles that are out there that may help give you a clue how the two parties have evolved over time.


If you need help
understanding it, feel free to ask questions.

http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who still supports the party of slavery and Jim Crow.  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "they switched".
> 
> The question presented to you was are you stating that the parties are identical to the parties as they were during slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> 
> Not certain how much more direct I can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been the party of slavery, whether it be chains of iron or chains of welfare, and blacks have always gone willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that you rely on a few talking points that you have heard or have been told and then like a parrot you repeat them over and over instead of reading, researching data from different sources and then arriving at an opinion that is actually your own.
> 
> 
> The ideologies of the two parties have definitely evolved over time, and unless you are a myopic dunce who never took an American government class, you would understand that.
> 
> Here is just one of many articles that are out there that may help give you a clue how the two parties have evolved over time.
> 
> 
> If you need help
> understanding it, feel free to ask questions.
> 
> http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform
Click to expand...

You're still living in denial.  Bottom line, black people are still just as much slaves to the Democrats as they were when they picked cotton for them 150 years ago.  You still do as you're told or you're punished.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of levity, please explain what bearing the party that you ASSume that  "I support" has on why the war was fought.
> 
> And as a rhetorical question,  are you truly ignorant enough to imply that the Republican and Democrat parties are the same parties that they were during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, not the old "they switched parties" bullshit again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "they switched".
> 
> The question presented to you was are you stating that the parties are identical to the parties as they were during slavery and Jim Crow?
> 
> 
> Not certain how much more direct I can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been the party of slavery, whether it be chains of iron or chains of welfare, and blacks have always gone willingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that you rely on a few talking points that you have heard or have been told and then like a parrot you repeat them over and over instead of reading, researching data from different sources and then arriving at an opinion that is actually your own.
> 
> 
> The ideologies of the two parties have definitely evolved over time, and unless you are a myopic dunce who never took an American government class, you would understand that.
> 
> Here is just one of many articles that are out there that may help give you a clue how the two parties have evolved over time.
> 
> 
> If you need help
> understanding it, feel free to ask questions.
> 
> http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still living in denial.  Bottom line, black people are still just as much slaves to the Democrats as they were when they picked cotton for them 150 years ago.  You still do as you're told or you're punished.
Click to expand...


No I don't live in denial.....especially about ignorant individuals like you.

Just as expected, you're deflecting with yet another spoonfed talking point, and you won't read and develop an opinion  or thought of your own  because you do not posess the mental acuity to do so.

Speaking of denial, you have conveniently sidestepped two questions that I directly asked you, one was about why the Civil War was fought, and the other asking you if you understood how the Democratic and Republican parties ideologies have evolved to become different parties than they were during slavery and Jim Crow.

Your inability to converse without repeating the same phrase over and over or even answer a direct question leaves very few options other than to dismiss you as uninformed and not very intelligent.


----------



## American_Jihad

Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...


----------



## S.J.

American_Jihad said:


> Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...


I know, watch the dummy with the backward avatar struggle to avoid admitting he's still a damn slave.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, watch the dummy with the backward avatar struggle to avoid admitting he's still a damn slave.
Click to expand...


Much more amusing to watch a semi illiterate, angry white male parrot let another one speak for him.


----------



## Asclepias

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, watch the dummy with the backward avatar struggle to avoid admitting he's still a damn slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much more amusing to watch a semi illiterate, angry white male parrot let another one speak for him.
Click to expand...

These autistic cave chimps like SJ are a barrel of monkeys.


----------



## American_Jihad

Asclepias said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, watch the dummy with the backward avatar struggle to avoid admitting he's still a damn slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much more amusing to watch a semi illiterate, angry white male parrot let another one speak for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These autistic cave chimps like SJ are a barrel of monkeys.
Click to expand...

Go suck some milkweed...


katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit another blm libtart nerve and loving it, thanks for the opportunity to bump...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, watch the dummy with the backward avatar struggle to avoid admitting he's still a damn slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much more amusing to watch a semi illiterate, angry white male parrot let another one speak for him.
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.




----------



## katsteve2012




----------



## protectionist

Huey said:


> You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.


Whites need to be the RECIPIENTS of reparations$$$.  Who should pay them isn't a matter of race. 

They should be paid by all those (of any race) who have been (and still are) guilty of imposing Affirmative Action racial discrimination against whites.  It should come out of their personal pockets - even it it bankrupts them.


----------



## protectionist

IanC said:


> why would you ask for reparations from a group that is already having difficulties in achieving social success? they need more help not a penalty. we should stop saying that they _deserve_ help because of past grievances though, and just help them because it is the right thing to do.


They're already being helped and in a way that is totally unfair to whites.  You never heard of Affirmative Action ?  Blacks have been getting it for 56 years now.


----------



## Cossack1483

Negros have exsisted responsiblity free since the war for Southern Independence.  Although we admit they all would be canibals without White ingenuity ; they owe Whites their very being,  Just leave us alone ; all we ask.  Become self suffiecient , get your own gubmint.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


*The Fatherest Favor the Unfittest*

Twenty trillion dollars down the drain since that HeirHead prettyboy JFK started this waste.  This decadent movement has been like telling a coach he shouldn't spend any time with his team, but should strictly concentrate on improving the athletic skills of those he had to cut in tryouts.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Mr Clean said:


> But, but, but  . . .
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.
> 
> (At least that's what the rednecks want us to believe.)


*Untold Source:  The Populist Revolts in Europe in 1848*

The Repubicans started it.  Therefore, it had to be about freeing the slaves to become cheap and grateful labor up North, taking the place of the unionizing White working class.  Many of those threatening Whites were also killed off in the war; the Chickenhawk Republicans could buy their way out of the draft.   The ruling-class's histwhorians, including the pseudo-Leftists, can't connect the dots; they can only collect the dots.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep hating and the ones like me and my offspring will keep increasing our worth every generation and we will also pass down WHO fought us every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you'll pass along your racial hatred to your children.
Click to expand...

Who sponsors this feral race?  If we ever search for and destroy that clique, this nightmare will be over.  And no, Swishy Swastickers, it's not the Jews.  And no, RINOs and Birchers, it's not the Democrats.  It's the anti-democratic clique that runs both parties behind the scenes.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Huey said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reparations should not be paid to anyone.
> 
> This isn't a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong Black people need to be paid.This country paid the Japs,native americans.So white you need to pay,pay,pay and pay some more.For all the atrocities you performed against Black people.
Click to expand...

*Your Only Alternative Was to Become a Lion's Lunch*

Slavery saved you from savagery.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you ask for reparations from a group that is already having difficulties in achieving social success? they need more help not a penalty. we should stop saying that they _deserve_ help because of past grievances though, and just help them because it is the right thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> They've had enough help.  How long do the taxpayers have to support them?
Click to expand...

*Whine, Get a Check.  Whine, Get a Check*

Since we never had an obligation to support the unfit in the first place, starting with that unearned privilege leads to perpetual unearned privileges.


----------



## LOIE

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


Many died in this war, some who fought for the right to continue slavery and some who opposed it. At the end of the civil war, President Hayes was elected only after he agreed to withdraw the northern troops out of the south. With that protection gone, the way was paved for Jim Crow to take over where legal slavery had been ended (at least on paper). Thus began the hunting down and lynching of “freed” slaves, the KKK, discrimination in housing, education, work opportunities, etc.


The 13th amendment stated that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within the United States. Thus started laws that made practically everything black people did a crime, opening the way for mass incarceration, once again enslaving the very folks who were supposed to have been freed.


The only reparations due anyone are those due to the descendants of black slaves, who built this country and made unimaginable wealth possible for the enslavers and their descendants.


----------



## S.J.

Delores Paulk said:


> The only reparations due anyone are those due to the descendants of black slaves, who built this country and made unimaginable wealth possible for the enslavers and their descendants.


They've already received reparations in the form of welfare that's been going on for generations.  They don't have to work for a living if they don't want to.  All they have to do is vote Democrat.


----------



## LOIE

S.J. said:


> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reparations due anyone are those due to the descendants of black slaves, who built this country and made unimaginable wealth possible for the enslavers and their descendants.
> 
> 
> 
> They've already received reparations in the form of welfare that's been going on for generations.  They don't have to work for a living if they don't want to.  All they have to do is vote Democrat.
Click to expand...

You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc. 

Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?  We have to be careful not to fall for the old "welfare queen" propaganda. Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.

I don't view welfare as a form of reparations at all. Ta'Nehisi Coates says that people think that since slavery officially ended, people should be O.K. now. But he says, "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"

Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery. All the while the government gives out minimal financial help to keep people alive, they also deny them decent healthcare, decent housing, decent schools, living wage, employment opportunities, etc. And the minimal financial help they give them goes right back into the pockets of large grocery chains and retailers. Nobody on welfare stashes it away and becomes wealthy.


----------



## S.J.

Delores Paulk said:


> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.


Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.


Delores Paulk said:


> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?


I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.


Delores Paulk said:


> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.


No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.


Delores Paulk said:


> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"


I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?


Delores Paulk said:


> Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery.


And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.


----------



## MaryL

Sure, why not? Or maybe we can call it even Steven. the cost of all those why guys dying to free all those slaves, how do you do the math? Please.


----------



## Unkotare

.................................


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mudda

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


They have no money. Or will you take food stamps?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.
Click to expand...


You did answer. And it was exactly what I expected that you would say, which validates what is obvious.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare to blacks does not begin to atone for the sin of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did answer. And it was exactly what I expected that you would say, which validates what is obvious.
Click to expand...

Learn how to post.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk like black folks are the only ones who get welfare. White people also get it, huge corporations get it, huge farms get it, oil companies get it, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you personally know any black people who get welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many on welfare are senior citizens, disabled, and children, people who should be able to have a decent meal even if they are unable to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you stopped beating me with a stick. Great. But what are you going to do to heal the wounds you caused while hitting me?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> 
> 
> Delores Paulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> And it's not my responsibility to atone for somebody else's sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did answer. And it was exactly what I expected that you would say, which validates what is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn how to post.
Click to expand...


There is obviously nothing wrong with how I post....you keep finding what I post and responding. 

Don't you?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are the only ones who don't even have to ask for it.
> I don't know any who don't get it, and I know a lot of black people.
> No disagreement there, but the ones who CAN work but don't WANT to work should not get it.  And the ones I know COULD work if they wanted to.
> I didn't beat anybody with a stick, and nobody alive today was a slave, so where are all theses "wounds"?
> It sounds like you are more familiar with the welfare system than the average person.
> 
> "Blacks are the only ones who don't have to ask for it"?
> 
> How do you know this?
> 
> "I dont know any blacks who ARE not on welfare, and I know a lot of blacks"?
> 
> You are either downright ignorant or your immediate circle consist of those who are from the lower rung of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did answer. And it was exactly what I expected that you would say, which validates what is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn how to post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is obviously nothing wrong with how I post....you keep finding what I post and responding.
> 
> Don't you?
Click to expand...

I know what you posted but you made it part of my post, and I'm not gonna spend time sorting it out line by line to separate it.  You essentially altered my post, which is against the rules.  I know it was done out of ignorance but I'm not fixing it for you, you're not worth the effort.  Repost it and do it right and I'll be happy to slap you down on what you're trying to say.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who taught you how to post?  Fix it and I'll answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did answer. And it was exactly what I expected that you would say, which validates what is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn how to post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is obviously nothing wrong with how I post....you keep finding what I post and responding.
> 
> Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you posted but you made it part of my post, and I'm not gonna spend time sorting it out line by line to separate it.  You essentially altered my post, which is against the rules.  I know it was done out of ignorance but I'm not fixing it for you, you're not worth the effort.  Repost it and do it right and I'll be happy to slap you down on what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...


If you had anything of substance or fact to say to back up an ignorant statement like:

"Black people are the only ones who don't have to ask for welfare", you would have already made the statement.

Now you are just attempting to deflect attention from your own ignorance and stupidity by trying to critique the manner in which I have posted.

Lame. Even for you.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> "Black people are the only ones who don't have to ask for welfare", you would have already made the statement.


Congratulations, you managed to eek out a post I could respond to without having to separate it from my own quote.
Black people don't have to ask for welfare, the Democratic Party goes out of their way to let them know they will receive it if they apply.  It started with LBJ and has been the preferred method of securing the black vote ever since and you know that.  I know a black family that has received literature on new programs available to blacks.  They are never turned down at the welfare office.  I know someone who works at one in my city and she was instructed to NOT deny them, even if they didn't need it.  White applicants, however, are always denied the first time they apply.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Black people are the only ones who don't have to ask for welfare", you would have already made the statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you managed to eek out a post I could respond to without having to separate it from my own quote.
> Black people don't have to ask for welfare, the Democratic Party goes out of their way to let them know they will receive it if they apply.  It started with LBJ and has been the preferred method of securing the black vote ever since and you know that.  I know a black family that has received literature on new programs available to blacks.  They are never turned down at the welfare office.  I know someone who works at one in my city and she was instructed to NOT deny them, even if they didn't need it.  White applicants, however, are always denied the first time they apply.
Click to expand...


Actually, I should congratulate you for setting a new standard for abject ignorance in this forum.

So, "You know of" ONE Black family that is on welfare, and "you know" ONE person who works at a welfare office?

That certainly does  account for the masses, doesn't it?

As far as your "Democratic Party" spoon fed talking point about they "secure" the black vote, that is the same nonsense that low information yokels from South if the mason dixon line have been spewing for decades.

You probably even believe that today's Republican party is the same party it was in 1865.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> So, "You know of" ONE Black family that is on welfare, and "you know" ONE person who works at a welfare office?


That's not what I said, pathetic liar.  I gave one example.  I know plenty of black families and every damn one of them are on some sort of public assistance.  You can't argue that blacks, as a percentage of the population, receive most of the welfare in this country.  They came here as slaves to Democrats and they're still slaves to Democrats.  They sold their vote (and their souls) to the Dem party in exchange for a free ride.  Admit it, you're still slaves, and your voting patterns prove it.


katsteve2012 said:


> You probably even believe that today's Republican party is the same party it was in 1865.


You probably believe that today's Democratic Party *isn't* the same slave owning party it was in 1865.  How does it feel to be told what to do and how to live your life because big brother controls your every move?


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, "You know of" ONE Black family that is on welfare, and "you know" ONE person who works at a welfare office?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said, pathetic liar.  I gave one example.  I know plenty of black families and every damn one of them are on some sort of public assistance.  You can't argue that blacks, as a percentage of the population, receive most of the welfare in this country.  They came here as slaves to Democrats and they're still slaves to Democrats.  They sold their vote (and their souls) to the Dem party in exchange for a free ride.  Admit it, you're still slaves, and your voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You probably even believe that today's Republican party is the same party it was in 1865.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You probably believe that today's Democratic Party *isn't* the same slave owning party it was in 1865.  How does it feel to be told what to do and how to live your life because big brother controls your every move?
Click to expand...


I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party. 

Contrary to your  warped, misinformed  perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.

What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?

Both are corrupt and both are self serving. 

It is not my problem If you do not possess the mental acuity to understand that fact.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party.


Yep, you're perfectly happy being taken care of by the taxpayers.


katsteve2012 said:


> Contrary to your warped, misinformed perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.


I didn't say "every black person in America" and you know that, which makes you a liar.


katsteve2012 said:


> What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?
> 
> Both are corrupt and both are self serving.


That's funny, I don't recall you ever criticizing Obama (or any other Democrat for that matter).


----------



## LOIE

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, "You know of" ONE Black family that is on welfare, and "you know" ONE person who works at a welfare office?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said, pathetic liar.  I gave one example.  I know plenty of black families and every damn one of them are on some sort of public assistance.  You can't argue that blacks, as a percentage of the population, receive most of the welfare in this country.  They came here as slaves to Democrats and they're still slaves to Democrats.  They sold their vote (and their souls) to the Dem party in exchange for a free ride.  Admit it, you're still slaves, and your voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You probably even believe that today's Republican party is the same party it was in 1865.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You probably believe that today's Democratic Party *isn't* the same slave owning party it was in 1865.  How does it feel to be told what to do and how to live your life because big brother controls your every move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party.
> 
> Contrary to your  warped, misinformed  perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.
> 
> What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?
> 
> Both are corrupt and both are self serving.
> 
> It is not my problem If you do not possess the mental acuity to understand that fact.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that there is an attempt to keep the country divided, so we do not come together and tackle the real problem of economic injustice. The book Dark Money clearly documents the efforts of the elite over the years to keep regular folks from becoming aware of what they are doing. 

I read lately that it works like this:  There are 10 coins on the table in front of you. A wealthy guy grabs up 9 of them and tells you, "Hey, watch out, that "Other" guy is trying to take your coin."


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're perfectly happy being taken care of by the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to your warped, misinformed perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say "every black person in America" and you know that, which makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?
> 
> Both are corrupt and both are self serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I don't recall you ever criticizing Obama (or any other Democrat for that matter).
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is astounding, yet humorous as well.

You may not have "stated" in exact and lucid wording that "every black person in America collects a welfare check,  however, your generally ignorant way of wording implies that sentiment, which illustrates that you are a poorly educated, misinformed individual, who has not been exposed to much outside of your television screen.

As far as me being critical of the last POTUS, I was highly critical of him. One reason was for being far too willing to cooperate with an opposing party of loons whose sole obsession was to contribute to him failing, even at the expense of the country. 

Please continue, and tell me how "taxpayers are taking care of me".....you are amusing, in a clownish way.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're perfectly happy being taken care of by the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to your warped, misinformed perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say "every black person in America" and you know that, which makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?
> 
> Both are corrupt and both are self serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I don't recall you ever criticizing Obama (or any other Democrat for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding, yet humorous as well.
> 
> You may not have "stated" in exact and lucid wording that "every black person in America collects a welfare check,  however, your generally ignorant way of wording implies that sentiment, which illustrates that you are a poorly educated, misinformed individual, who has not been exposed to much outside of your television screen.
> 
> As far as me being critical of the last POTUS, I was highly critical of him. One reason was for being far too willing to cooperate with an opposing party of loons whose sole obsession was to contribute to him failing, even at the expense of the country.
> 
> Please continue, and tell me how "taxpayers are taking care of me".....you are amusing, in a clownish way.
Click to expand...

All you ever have to offer is excuses and denial.  You will never advance your race as long as you refuse to accept facts.  You're done.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am perfectly happy with my life, and I am not loyal to any political party.
> 
> 
> 
> Yelp, you're perfectly happy being taken care of by the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to your warped, misinformed perspective, every Black citizen in America does not collect a welfare check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say "every black person in America" and you know that, which makes you a liar.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you so ignorant that you do not understand that there is no appreciable difference in either party, and collectively their intent is to divide the country?
> 
> Both are corrupt and both are self serving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's funny, I don't recall you ever criticizing Obama (or any other Democrat for that matter).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is astounding, yet humorous as well.
> 
> You may not have "stated" in exact and lucid wording that "every black person in America collects a welfare check,  however, your generally ignorant way of wording implies that sentiment, which illustrates that you are a poorly educated, misinformed individual, who has not been exposed to much outside of your television screen.
> 
> As far as me being critical of the last POTUS, I was highly critical of him. One reason was for being far too willing to cooperate with an opposing party of loons whose sole obsession was to contribute to him failing, even at the expense of the country.
> 
> Please continue, and tell me how "taxpayers are taking care of me".....you are amusing, in a clownish way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All you ever have to offer is excuses and denial.  You will never advance your race as long as you refuse to accept facts.  You're done.
Click to expand...


Excuses? Because  I will not listen to or humor your idiocy? 

You dont have any "facts" that I would consider sensible,  nor are you in any position to preach to anyone regarding who they should "elevate"

I am one individual, and I am concerned only with me.

I am not elevated nor diminished by the successes or failures of anyone who happens to be by accident of birth of the same race.

Again, are you ignorant enough to think that you are responsible for "elevating" the low achievers of  YOUR race? 

Or are you one of those that needs elevating by one of "your race"?

 Do you actually think that you are personally rewarded for the accomplishments of successful people of your race?

And while you are at it, you have still yet tell me how taxpayers are "taking care of me".....you cannot because they do not.


----------



## Aries

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


Is this thread a joke?


----------



## katsteve2012

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
Click to expand...


The person who started it is.


----------



## mudwhistle

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


I didn't fight in the Civil War. 
They don't owe me a thing.


----------



## mudwhistle

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
Click to expand...

No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.


----------



## katsteve2012

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
Click to expand...


The one who started this stupid  thread is the joke:

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." 

- Martin Luther King ...


----------



## S.J.

mudwhistle said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
Click to expand...

Finally somebody gets it.


----------



## Aries

S.J. said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
Click to expand...

I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.


----------



## S.J.

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
Click to expand...

Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.


----------



## Aries

S.J. said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
Click to expand...

They are simply voting for the party that supports their community. Should they vote for the party that oppresses them?


----------



## S.J.

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are simply voting for the party that supports their community. Should they vote for the party that oppresses them?
Click to expand...

How does the Republican Party oppress them?


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
Click to expand...


You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift. 

Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.

Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.


----------



## Aries

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
Click to expand...

Thank you!!


----------



## mudwhistle

S.J. said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are simply voting for the party that supports their community. Should they vote for the party that oppresses them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Republican Party oppress them?
Click to expand...

They refuse to pay them.


----------



## mudwhistle

Aries said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
Click to expand...

I hope they kept an itemised list of the stolen articles, because they have to prove damages in Civil court.


----------



## mudwhistle

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are greatly misinformed..


----------



## katsteve2012

mudwhistle said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
Click to expand...




mudwhistle said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
Click to expand...


Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?


://www.racefiles.com/2012/10/08/when-welfare-was-white-what-the-fight-over-the-safe-net-is-really-about/


----------



## mudwhistle

katsteve2012 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
Click to expand...

I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


Yes but whites should pay reparations to blacks because whites wronged blacks. Moreover, we should look through all of human history and discover every case where  one group wronged another group and pay reparations.  Moreover, payments should be based on degree of wrong done. Payments should not begin until the above matters have been Appropriately determined by the appropriate groups.


----------



## katsteve2012

mudwhistle said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
Click to expand...


So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?

Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?


----------



## Aries

mudwhistle said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
Click to expand...

lol but can you refute any of that?


----------



## Foxfyre

S.J. said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
Click to expand...


Frankly, if there are any reparations due black Americans, it is for the injustice in what that welfare check and food card has done to some black Americans.  All honest black historians agree that black Americans were the most rapidly advancing group economically right up to Johnson's Great Society initiatives.  And soon thereafter, when those policies kicked in, that advancement stalled and regressed in many ways.

Nobody is saying ALL Great Society initiatives were not beneficial. 

But those that stripped fathers of their pride and respect in supporting their families and actually encouraged them to distance themselves decimated the black family.  Up to then, black children had a mom and dad in the home comparable to white children.  Urban renewal uprooted vital supportive old neighborhoods and separated black Americans from the institutions that had supported and sustained them and were soon replaced with government welfare initiatives.

The new shiny projects would soon deteriorate into rat infested slums while the old neighborhoods were bulldozed to make way for freeways and commercial development.  Gangs took place of playgrounds.  Violence took place of mutual support and too many black youth feel forced to join the Crips or Bloods or some other gang just to survive in a violent and dangerous environment.

And of course that is not the story for all black Americans as many have prospered and achieved great things.  But it is the fate that we have arranged for far too many.

How about some reparations or at least a merciful remedy for that?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.


They turned to the Democratic Party when LBJ started buying their votes with welfare.


katsteve2012 said:


> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.


Sure, but Bob Byrd (a former Klansman) opposing it didn't seem to bother them?  Good one.  


katsteve2012 said:


> Welfare has nothing to do with it.


It was the determining factor.


----------



## mudwhistle

katsteve2012 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
Click to expand...

I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.

I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.


----------



## mudwhistle

Foxfyre said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, if there are any reparations due black Americans, it is for the injustice in what that welfare check and food card has done to some black Americans.  All honest black historians agree that black Americans were the most rapidly advancing group economically right up to Johnson's Great Society initiatives.  And soon thereafter, when those policies kicked in, that advancement stalled and regressed in many ways.
> 
> Nobody is saying ALL Great Society initiatives were not beneficial.
> 
> But those that stripped fathers of their pride and respect in supporting their families and actually encouraged them to distance themselves decimated the black family.  Up to then, black children had a mom and dad in the home comparable to white children.  Urban renewal uprooted vital supportive old neighborhoods and separated black Americans from the institutions that had supported and sustained them and were soon replaced with government welfare initiatives.
> 
> The new shiny projects would soon deteriorate into rat infested slums while the old neighborhoods were bulldozed to make way for freeways and commercial development.  Gangs took place of playgrounds.  Violence took place of mutual support and too many black youth feel forced to join the Crips or Bloods or some other gang just to survive in a violent and dangerous environment.
> 
> And of course that is not the story for all black Americans as many have prospered and achieved great things.  But it is the fate that we have arranged for far too many.
> 
> How about some reparations or at least a merciful remedy for that?
Click to expand...

Nope. Reparations for a group that likes sitting on their asses and getting high while collecting benefits is a silly idea.
Wanna cure them of it, make them stay together and bring up their kids. Get married and bring in two incomes. That's the quickest way out of the Ghetto.


----------



## S.J.

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but whites should pay reparations to blacks because whites wronged blacks. Moreover, we should look through all of human history and discover every case where  one group wronged another group and pay reparations.  Moreover, payments should be based on degree of wrong done. Payments should not begin until the above matters have been Appropriately determined by the appropriate groups.
Click to expand...

And let me guess which group you would demand pay for these reparations.  Ummm, white people?


----------



## mudwhistle

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but whites should pay reparations to blacks because whites wronged blacks. Moreover, we should look through all of human history and discover every case where  one group wronged another group and pay reparations.  Moreover, payments should be based on degree of wrong done. Payments should not begin until the above matters have been Appropriately determined by the appropriate groups.
Click to expand...

The Egyptians wronged the Hebrews and I'm looking for some payback. The English wronged the bloody Scottish and by God I want some bloody payback.


----------



## Foxfyre

mudwhistle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aries said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more of a joke than reparations for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally somebody gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think blacks should get reparations either, for what? What was taken from them can't be bought back with money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can.  They've been selling their votes to Democrats for decades now.  Their payment is a welfare check and a food card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, if there are any reparations due black Americans, it is for the injustice in what that welfare check and food card has done to some black Americans.  All honest black historians agree that black Americans were the most rapidly advancing group economically right up to Johnson's Great Society initiatives.  And soon thereafter, when those policies kicked in, that advancement stalled and regressed in many ways.
> 
> Nobody is saying ALL Great Society initiatives were not beneficial.
> 
> But those that stripped fathers of their pride and respect in supporting their families and actually encouraged them to distance themselves decimated the black family.  Up to then, black children had a mom and dad in the home comparable to white children.  Urban renewal uprooted vital supportive old neighborhoods and separated black Americans from the institutions that had supported and sustained them and were soon replaced with government welfare initiatives.
> 
> The new shiny projects would soon deteriorate into rat infested slums while the old neighborhoods were bulldozed to make way for freeways and commercial development.  Gangs took place of playgrounds.  Violence took place of mutual support and too many black youth feel forced to join the Crips or Bloods or some other gang just to survive in a violent and dangerous environment.
> 
> And of course that is not the story for all black Americans as many have prospered and achieved great things.  But it is the fate that we have arranged for far too many.
> 
> How about some reparations or at least a merciful remedy for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Reparations for a group that likes sitting on their asses and getting high while collecting benefits is a silly idea.
> Wanna cure them of it, make them stay together and bring up their kids. Get married and bring in two incomes. That's the quickest way out of the Ghetto.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the point of my post maybe?  The point was that we CREATED a culture of sitting on asses, resenting those who had more than they did and instead of working for it feeling entitled to have it handed to them, etc. etc. etc.  We destroyed their neighborhoods and the institutions that sustained them  all in the name of well intended progressivism.

Is it all the fault of the do-gooders?  Of course not.  We are all responsible for how we choose to deal with all forms of diversity.  But I have no illusions that a lot of the so-called Great Society initiatives were an evil imposed on black Americans as well as some other Americans.

And I think we and the wealthy civil rights leaders who gain their wealth capitalizing on the misery and anger of many black Americans and the opportunistic permanent politic class who retain their advantage by capitalizing on both, should do what we can to fix it.  Hint:  that would NOT involve increasing the government handouts and special interest programs already in place.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

mudwhistle said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but whites should pay reparations to blacks because whites wronged blacks. Moreover, we should look through all of human history and discover every case where  one group wronged another group and pay reparations.  Moreover, payments should be based on degree of wrong done. Payments should not begin until the above matters have been Appropriately determined by the appropriate groups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Egyptians wronged the Hebrews and I'm looking for some payback. The English wronged the bloody Scottish and by God I want some bloody payback.
Click to expand...

 By my calculations there are only  .7 billion groups in history that have wronged other groups so once we figure out who the  .7 billion groups are and the degree to which they wronged other people we can then figure out what the privileged people living today gained from the wrongs that were done in history, calculate who their ancestors are, their living ancestors that is, and then calculate the payment owed to them.


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> But, but, but  . . .
> 
> The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights.
> 
> (At least that's what the rednecks want us to believe.)




YOur racist statement is noted, and held against you, racist.


----------



## katsteve2012

mudwhistle said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are as dumb as a stone. Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it. In fact when welfare was first introduced, black people for the most part were denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.
> 
> I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.
Click to expand...


Suuure you "don't go near Stormfront".....asshole.

But here is a novel thought for your little peanut brain. Since "you think" I'm a liar, why not post something from one of your "information sources" to prove it?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are greatly misinformed..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are greatly
> 
> misinformed..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.
> 
> I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuure you "don't go near Stormfront".....asshole.
> 
> But here is a novel thought for your little peanut brain. Since "you think" I'm a liar, why not post something from one of your "information sources" to prove it?
Click to expand...


So, instead of backing up your claims, you decided to attack the messenger? With the Race Card? Shocker.


That's an admission that you can't defend your position with actual facts. 


Your admission of defeat is accepted.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blsck citizens turned to the Democratic party during FDR's administration. His progressive policies such as drsegregating the military contributed to that shift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They turned to the Democratic Party when LBJ started buying their votes with welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 also played a part in the change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but Bob Byrd (a former Klansman) opposing it didn't seem to bother them?  Good one.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the determining factor.
Click to expand...


Have you EVER opened is history book? Or do you just always  pull nonsense out of thin air?

Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck. Furthermore, Goldwater opposing the civil rights act of 1964 and Johnson helping, drove even more black voters toward the Democratic Party. 

Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..its no secret except to morons like you and Mudtwit, that for the most part SOUTHERN republicans AND democrats were just  as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in the 18th century.


"The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. He got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

It wasn’t until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment."




Source:
Blacks and the Democratic Party - FactCheck.org


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I assume that since you have an "opinion"  you are informed by default?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.
> 
> I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuure you "don't go near Stormfront".....asshole.
> 
> But here is a novel thought for your little peanut brain. Since "you think" I'm a liar, why not post something from one of your "information sources" to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, instead of backing up your claims, you decided to attack the messenger? With the Race Card? Shocker.
> 
> 
> That's an admission that you can't defend your position with actual facts.
> 
> 
> Your admission of defeat is accepted.
Click to expand...


Your "messenger" never presented a single fact to support his position, all he did was to make a comment about "where he gets his information"....that is NOT the same as actually POSTING information,  in case that thought is a novelty to you.


That aside, I wasn't speaking to you.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my information from something other than Mother Jones, Democratic Underground,  or MSNBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.
> 
> I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuure you "don't go near Stormfront".....asshole.
> 
> But here is a novel thought for your little peanut brain. Since "you think" I'm a liar, why not post something from one of your "information sources" to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, instead of backing up your claims, you decided to attack the messenger? With the Race Card? Shocker.
> 
> 
> That's an admission that you can't defend your position with actual facts.
> 
> 
> Your admission of defeat is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "messenger" never presented a single fact to support his position, in case you did not take time to read the entire thread, Junior.
> That aside, I wasn't speaking to you.
Click to expand...



Did you challenge him to support his claims? DId you post facts to refute his claims?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? I do not get information from those sources either. Where do you get your "information" from? Jared Taylor? Stormfront?
> 
> Until you post something of value to refute what you do not agree with, whats your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think would know if it had any value, shitforbrains.  I also think you're a liar. But when talking to a Hillary supporter/Liberal/Democrat that goes without saying.
> 
> I don't go near Stormfront....and I don't even know anything about the other sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuure you "don't go near Stormfront".....asshole.
> 
> But here is a novel thought for your little peanut brain. Since "you think" I'm a liar, why not post something from one of your "information sources" to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, instead of backing up your claims, you decided to attack the messenger? With the Race Card? Shocker.
> 
> 
> That's an admission that you can't defend your position with actual facts.
> 
> 
> Your admission of defeat is accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "messenger" never presented a single fact to support his position, in case you did not take time to read the entire thread, Junior.
> That aside, I wasn't speaking to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you challenge him to support his claims? DId you post facts to refute his claims?
Click to expand...


He never MADE a claim...read the fucking thread.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.


I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.


katsteve2012 said:


> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..


One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT

And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.

Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.

Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.


----------



## LOIE

Granny said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where, in all these proposed reparations, do the African chieftans who so readily sold their own tribesmen for self enrichment, stand? Why are they not included in all this talk of who did what?
Click to expand...

My husband explained it to me this way. The African tribes which were at war with each other took prisoners from the other tribes. The prisoners were kept 7 years, then could marry into the tribe or go back to their own.  When the slave traders came to the coasts, they sold the prisoners to them, believing the same rules of war would apply.  Later, when they found out what was really happening to them, they stopped and moved farther into the interior of the country. Then the slave traders hunted and captured them.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
Click to expand...


I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?

ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.

You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> ALL of them were southerners.


The common denominator is that all of them were DEMOCRATS, including Al Gore Sr.


katsteve2012 said:


> and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before the Johnson era.


What you showed me was that blacks started their migration to the Democratic Party beginning with FDR, who first started the welfare program.  It was Lyndon Johnson who saw the opportunity to put them back on the plantation by expanding the welfare program which opened the flood gates for blacks to be dependent on his party far into the future.  You have trouble facing the fact that blacks have been selling their vote for a welfare check since it's inception, the same way they sold their own people into slavery.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL of them were southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> The common denominator is that all of them were DEMOCRATS, including Al Gore Sr.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you showed me was that blacks started their migration to the Democratic Party beginning with FDR, who first started the welfare program.  It was Lyndon Johnson who saw the opportunity to put them back on the plantation by expanding the welfare program which opened the flood gates for blacks to be dependent on his party far into the future.  You have trouble facing the fact that blacks have been selling their vote for a welfare check since it's inception, the same way they sold their own people into slavery.
Click to expand...


As usual, you post nonsense without including any credible historical information.. Yes they were democrats but their SOUTHERN legacy and ideology is what made them the backward,bigots that they were. Southern republicans were no different.

And as far as FDR gaining the black vote because of him introducing welfare, white people, specifically white mothers were the primary beneficiaries of FDRS New Deal safety net.....try doing some reading for a change:

How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
Click to expand...



20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?


What does that say about your boy Jimmy?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
Click to expand...


Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

_




You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> And as far as FDR gaining the black vote because of him introducing welfare, *white people, specifically white mothers were the primary beneficiaries of FDRS New Deal safety net....*.


It's possible that whites did collect more welfare back then than blacks.  Blacks were, and still are, a small minority of the population.  That doesn't mean they didn't recognize the opportunity to get a free ride the same way they do today.  The "safety net" quickly became a way of life for blacks, and now they can't function in life without it (or don't care to even try).  They expect it and see it as an entitlement.
I understand your embarrassment but if you really wanted to improve your image and your status as humans you would acknowledge that you've become slaves once again, only to the government, and do something about THAT instead of whining about racism for 6 or 7 decades to justify it.  That tired old excuse has run it's course and society is now tuning you out.  They're tired of trying to elevate you when you won't even try to elevate yourselves.  You owe the taxpayers a refund.


----------



## ThirdTerm

> As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
> 5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation - History in the Headlines



 Abe Lincoln freed slaves to create chaos in the South and win the war and he didn't do it for humanitarian reasons. Lincoln hoped that the Emancipation Proclamation would further undermine the Confederacy as thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as FDR gaining the black vote because of him introducing welfare, *white people, specifically white mothers were the primary beneficiaries of FDRS New Deal safety net....*.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible that whites did collect more welfare back then than blacks.  Blacks were, and still are, a small minority of the population.  That doesn't mean they didn't recognize the opportunity to get a free ride the same way they do today.  The "safety net" quickly became a way of life for blacks, and now they can't function in life without it (or don't care to even try).  They expect it and see it as an entitlement.
> I understand your embarrassment but if you really wanted to improve your image and your status as humans you would acknowledge that you've become slaves once again, only to the government, and do something about THAT instead of whining about racism for 6 or 7 decades to justify it.  That tired old excuse has run it's course and society is now tuning you out.  They're tired of trying to elevate you when you won't even try to elevate yourselves.  You owe the taxpayers a refund.
Click to expand...



ROFLMO!.....It's not just "possible" that whites collected welfare that black citizens for the most part were denied during FDRS era, it's a fact.

Frankly YOU should be embarrassed for your inability to present intelligent  facts to back up the nonsense that you post, which is entirely nothing more than your "opinions".

First, you ignore  that SOUTHERN republicans were equally as racist as SOUTHERN democrats, then you state that blacks shifted to the Democratic party when FDR was elected soley for welfare?!

This was during an era when black citizens IN SPITE of being marginalized by oppressive Jim Crow laws still wanted to actually fight for this country in a military that was segregated.


You can even use the tired old tactic of the ignorant of trying to personalize your  welfare rant and say that "I should be embarrassed"....(for something that I have never used nor remotely had a need for ).......

You're a waste of board space.


----------



## Asclepias

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as FDR gaining the black vote because of him introducing welfare, *white people, specifically white mothers were the primary beneficiaries of FDRS New Deal safety net....*.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible that whites did collect more welfare back then than blacks.  Blacks were, and still are, a small minority of the population.  That doesn't mean they didn't recognize the opportunity to get a free ride the same way they do today.  The "safety net" quickly became a way of life for blacks, and now they can't function in life without it (or don't care to even try).  They expect it and see it as an entitlement.
> I understand your embarrassment but if you really wanted to improve your image and your status as humans you would acknowledge that you've become slaves once again, only to the government, and do something about THAT instead of whining about racism for 6 or 7 decades to justify it.  That tired old excuse has run it's course and society is now tuning you out.  They're tired of trying to elevate you when you won't even try to elevate yourselves.  You owe the taxpayers a refund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMO!.....It's not just "possible" that whites collected welfare that black citizens for the most part were denied during FDRS era, it's a fact.
> 
> Frankly YOU should be embarrassed for your inability to present intelligent  facts to back up the nonsense that you post, which is entirely nothing more than your "opinions".
> 
> First, you ignore  that SOUTHERN republicans were equally as racist as SOUTHERN democrats, then you state that blacks shifted to the Democratic party when FDR was elected soley for welfare?!
> 
> This was during an era when black citizens IN SPITE of being marginalized by oppressive Jim Crow laws still wanted to actually fight for this country in a military that was segregated.
> 
> 
> You can even use the tired old tactic of the ignorant of trying to personalize your  welfare rant and say that "I should be embarrassed"....(for something that I have never used nor remotely had a need for ).......
> 
> You're a waste of board space.
Click to expand...


Not fair. SJ is a mental cripple.  That cave chimp DNA makes it something that keeps cropping up in his genes.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> ROFLMO!.....It's not just "possible" that whites collected welfare that black citizens for the most part were denied during FDRS era, it's a fact.


Link?


katsteve2012 said:


> Frankly YOU should be embarrassed for your inability to present intelligent facts to back up the nonsense that you post, which is entirely nothing more but your "opinions".


Not just my opinions, the opinion of every other race in the world.


katsteve2012 said:


> First, you deny that SOUTHERN republicans were equally as racist as SOUTHERN democrats, then you state that blacks shifted to the Democratic party when FDR was elected soley for welfare?!


No, I acknowledged that they STARTED migrating to the Dem party, and it's obvious that welfare was the tool they used to get you to do it.


katsteve2012 said:


> This was during an era when black citizens IN SPITE of being marginalized by oppressive Jim Crow laws


Jim Crow laws enacted by who?  You guessed it, DEMOCRATS.


katsteve2012 said:


> You can even use the tired old tactic of the ignorant of trying to personalize your welfare rant and say that "I should be embarrassed"....(for something that I have never used nor remotely had a need for ).......


If you've never used it, you should be embarrassed for making excuses for the parasites who have made it a way of life for generations.


katsteve2012 said:


> You're a waste of board space.


Well that's a sure way of making your case.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
Click to expand...



You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
Click to expand...


Yes they were. And you know good and well that I was referring to their role in opposing the civil rights act of 1964. 

Read what I posted. No time for your playground semantics.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMO!.....It's not just "possible" that whites collected welfare that black citizens for the most part were denied during FDRS era, it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly YOU should be embarrassed for your inability to present intelligent facts to back up the nonsense that you post, which is entirely nothing more but your "opinions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not just my opinions, the opinion of every other race in the world.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, you deny that SOUTHERN republicans were equally as racist as SOUTHERN democrats, then you state that blacks shifted to the Democratic party when FDR was elected soley for welfare?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I acknowledged that they STARTED migrating to the Dem party, and it's obvious that welfare was the tool they used to get you to do it.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was during an era when black citizens IN SPITE of being marginalized by oppressive Jim Crow laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws enacted by who?  You guessed it, DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can even use the tired old tactic of the ignorant of trying to personalize your welfare rant and say that "I should be embarrassed"....(for something that I have never used nor remotely had a need for ).......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you've never used it, you should be embarrassed for making excuses for the parasites who have made it a way of life for generations.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a waste of board space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's a sure way of making your case.
Click to expand...


I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases  not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

How many "links" have you posted in this thread, which you actually started? You did not even post a link to start the thread.

That would have put you in a position to have to  do some reading for a change to be able to speak to what you posted, which you seldom, if ever do, which enables you to talk in circles, repeating the same gibberish.

 That's what is called posting an "opinion" as opposed to information with sources..


I will not spoon feed your laziness any further.  Go back and read, if you are able to.


----------



## Mudda

Blacks should stop whining or else go back to Africa.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. And you know good and well that I was referring to their role in opposing the civil rights act of 1964.
> 
> Read what I posted. No time for your playground semantics.
Click to expand...



Yet, they were happy to vote for Civil Right's supporter Jimmy Carter and his civil rights supporting party, just 12 years later, well within the 20th century.

How do you explain that contradiction?


I assume you are NOT arguing that the Civil Rights fight was OVER by 1976?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
Click to expand...


You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
Click to expand...



I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.

Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?


It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.  

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.  

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.  

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?
> 
> ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.
> 
> You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before  the Johnson era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.
> 
> Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.
Click to expand...


No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong. 

 1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to  legislation that changed the country. 

You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
Click to expand...



So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?

Makes sense.

But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.

Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?
> 
> 
> What does that say about your boy Jimmy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.
> 
> Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.
> 
> 1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to  legislation that changed the country.
> 
> You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.
Click to expand...



And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.

Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
Click to expand...

It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
Click to expand...



The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.

Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I have to say to YOU.
> The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.
> 
> 
> "You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.
> 
> Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.
> 
> 1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to  legislation that changed the country.
> 
> You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.
> 
> Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...


I don't need to "defend my position" regarding the setiments of SOUTHERN policy makers, who if they had been successful would have kept MY family, who served this country, in the position of second class citizenship. 

The proof of that fact is in history that you refuse to acknowledge.

I don't hate anyone who does not hate or stereotype me.

Finally,  I have better things to do than respond to your silliness.

Get lost.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.


You posted links to opinions, not facts.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh?  Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party.  And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One racist, huh?  Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
> Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
> Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
> Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
> William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
> Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT
> 
> And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass?  You guessed it.
> 
> Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.
> 
> Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.
Click to expand...

*Lincoln Married a Rich Girl; That's All You Need to Know About the Civil War*

So Democrats are for White people and Republicans hate White people?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

[QUOTE="S.J., post: 17287097, member: 41356]  It was Lyndon Johnson who saw the opportunity to put them back on the plantation by expanding the welfare program which opened the flood gates for blacks to be dependent on his party far into the future.  You have trouble facing the fact that blacks have been selling their vote for a welfare check since it'sits inception, the same way they sold their own people into slavery.[/QUOTE]
*


War Is Class Warfare*

LBJ escalated the Vietnam War to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the working class.  War is good business; invest your employees' sons.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Mudda said:


> Blacks should stop whining or else go back to Africa.


In Africa, Black lives have never mattered.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
Click to expand...



You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
Click to expand...

150 years of history proves me right.


----------



## katsteve2012

*8*


S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years of history proves me right.
Click to expand...


Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand  or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.


----------



## danielpalos

> The overall prosperity of the United States in the 1920s overshadowed the chronic poverty of certain vulnerable populations. These were the same populations that had always been at risk in American history: children, older Americans, minorities, female-headed families, people with disabilities, and workers with unstable or low-paying jobs.--http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/american-social-policy-in-the-great-depression-and-wwii/


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them TO be facts.....because you cannot.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> *8*
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years of history proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand  or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society.  Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *8*
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years of history proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand  or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society.  Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?
Click to expand...

Lousy "management"?  Would Jim Crow have occurred to Anyone, if blacks could have simply quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.
> 
> 1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.
> 
> So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.
> 
> Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.
> 
> 1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to  legislation that changed the country.
> 
> You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.
> 
> Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to "defend my position" regarding the setiments of SOUTHERN policy makers, who if they had been successful would have kept MY family, who served this country, in the position of second class citizenship.
> ...t.
Click to expand...



You don't "need" to defend your position on Southerns, which is good, because you CAN'T.

It is obvious bullshit as demonstrated by Jimmy Carter's near sweep of the South.

Why do you feel the need to smear good people?

How do you justify your marginalization of good people?

How can you not see that your behavior makes YOU the bad person here?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white.  More than half of them were Union soldiers.  These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result.  Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
Click to expand...



So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.
> 
> Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.
> 
> 1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to  legislation that changed the country.
> 
> You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.
> 
> Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to "defend my position" regarding the setiments of SOUTHERN policy makers, who if they had been successful would have kept MY family, who served this country, in the position of second class citizenship.
> ...t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't "need" to defend your position on Southerns, which is good, because you CAN'T.
> 
> It is obvious bullshit as demonstrated by Jimmy Carter's near sweep of the South.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to smear good people?
> 
> How do you justify your marginalization of good people?
> 
> How can you not see that your behavior makes YOU the bad person here?
Click to expand...


How do you NOT see that you are an anonymous person on the internet whose one sided opinion is irrelevant to me and that you are wasting board space by  twisting the words that I posted regarding the Civil Rights Act voting of SOUTHERN state lawmakers in 1964 to suit YOUR personal agenda? 

You are not the forum police, so get over yourself.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
Click to expand...


What they "got" was that they kept THEIR country whole as a result of the war for states rights

Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws. 

The war was about business, not some romanticized, humanitarian "labor of love "

SMGDH.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *8*
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years of history proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand  or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society.  Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?
Click to expand...


You are entitled to your "opinion"  as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?

 Even you should know better than that.

You can reference  any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south.


If that is your definition of "150 years of freedom", then  you are far more ignorantly misinformed than imaginable.

50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females. 

Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to  39%.

Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.

What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.

 Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.

For the sake of MLK'S "dream of joining hands" with his own oppresors.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them TO be facts.....because you cannot.
Click to expand...


It is not my problem that you refuse to read or try to comprehend facts.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.
> 
> And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.
> 
> You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.
> 
> Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
Click to expand...

Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?



> 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.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *8*
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.
> 
> One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted links to opinions, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 150 years of history proves me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand  or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society.  Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?
Click to expand...

*Who Is Threatened by the Talented?  *

Twenty trillion dollars gone down the drain.  If that had been spent on potentially productive people, it would have produced a twenty trillion dollar surplus.  This wrong turn has been like telling a coach that he should neglect his team and spend all his time trying to improve the athletic skills of those he had to cut in tryouts.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.


Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.


katsteve2012 said:


> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?


Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?


katsteve2012 said:


> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.


And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.


katsteve2012 said:


> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.


Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.


katsteve2012 said:


> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.


Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.


katsteve2012 said:


> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.


Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?


katsteve2012 said:


> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.


Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?
> 
> Makes sense.
> 
> But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.
> 
> Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.

I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.

You have yet to answer that.

A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.


----------



## S.J.

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
Click to expand...

But, but racism, oppression, Jim Crow, KKK, segregation.  You know, all those things DEMOCRATS gave black people because they care so much about them.


----------



## Correll

S.J. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, but racism, oppression, Jim Crow, KKK, segregation.  You know, all those things DEMOCRATS gave black people because they care so much about them.
Click to expand...


Liberals are incapable of seeing the massive and many contradictions in their idiot policies and their idiotic positions. 

So, I rub their faces in the stupidity of their words and actions, just to see how utterly and ever increasingly ridiculous their denials become.


As hobbies go, it doesn't cost much. NOt like deep sea fishing.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the "rule of law".  States have no authority over immigration since 1808.  That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
Click to expand...

dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
Click to expand...



Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed. 

My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.






You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.

I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.

You have yet to answer that.

A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
Click to expand...

Slavery should have ended automatically, after 1808.  Whose fault was it, that did not happen?


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
Click to expand...


No one us flailing except you. If you possessed some first hand knowledge of history you would understand. Jim Crow LAWS restricted black citizens from the most basic rights of citizenship.


S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
Click to expand...


No one is failing except you. Your inability to exercise critical thinking skills and refusal to read and interpret history is what is getting in your way. Jim Crow laws were allegedly "seprrate but equal" but in truth were far from it. There were different versons of segregation in the North and South.

 If you READ what I stated, I clearly said "Black citizens abandoned black owned businesses to follow MLK and his dream" 

As far your insistence on trying to present today's Democrats and Republicans as the same parties they were over a century ago, only someone in a self imposed  coma would do so.

There is more than enough information in the following link to address that.

Jim Crow Laws and Racial Segregation - Social Welfare History Project


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one us flailing except you. If you possessed some first hand knowledge of history you would understand. Jim Crow LAWS restricted black citizens from the most basic rights of citizenship.
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is failing except you. Your inability to exercise critical thinking skills and refusal to read and interpret history is what is getting in your way. Jim Crow laws were allegedly "seprrate but equal" but in truth were far from it. There were different versons of segregation in the North and South.
> 
> If you READ what I stated, I clearly said "Black citizens abandoned black owned businesses to follow MLK and his dream"
> 
> As far your insistence on trying to present today's Democrats and Republicans as the same parties they were over a century ago, only someone in a self imposed  coma would do so.
> 
> There is more than enough information in the following link to address that.
> 
> Jim Crow Laws and Racial Segregation - Social Welfare History Project
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're trying to convince me of what I already know.  Yeah, Jim Crow laws were very oppressive and racist.  And they were enacted by...DEMOCRATS.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one us flailing except you. If you possessed some first hand knowledge of history you would understand. Jim Crow LAWS restricted black citizens from the most basic rights of citizenship.
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black citizens were released from slavery due to the industrialization of the country by default and were promptly introduced to Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws created by you guessed it...DEMOCRATS.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your "opinion" as well. But do you think that former slaves just cast off their shackles, walked off of plantations and waltzed into the workforce as equal competitors to all other employable citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps not, but after 150 years, a reasonable person would have to ask "How much time do you need"?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can reference any credible historical source and learn that Jim Crow laws, which were enacted almost immediately following the war for states rights. lasted in some states(mostly southern) until the mid 1960's, *which is why many blacks migrated from the oppressive south*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL didn't make an effort to do anything for themselves.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 years of "preferential treatment"? The most prosperous demographic in this country today as a result of AA hiring redevelopment initiatives are white females.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because they're willing to take advantage of the opportunity and WORK instead of remaining on welfare.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welfare? Black people and white people proportionally use nearly the same amount at close to 39%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except blacks are only 13% of the population.  6 times more welfare than whites per capita.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even after considering that generational poverty has impacted black families at a higher rate than any other demographic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe because you make no effort to work your way out of it.  If you don't care about advancing yourself, why should anybody else?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do believe is that integration has been more of a hindrance than a benefit to the black population.
> 
> Black owned businesses were abandoned by black citizens who were forced by segregation to build and patronize their own business communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those two statements contradict each other.  First you say integration hurt them, then you say segregation hurt them.  Which is it?  You're flailing in your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is failing except you. Your inability to exercise critical thinking skills and refusal to read and interpret history is what is getting in your way. Jim Crow laws were allegedly "seprrate but equal" but in truth were far from it. There were different versons of segregation in the North and South.
> 
> If you READ what I stated, I clearly said "Black citizens abandoned black owned businesses to follow MLK and his dream"
> 
> As far your insistence on trying to present today's Democrats and Republicans as the same parties they were over a century ago, only someone in a self imposed  coma would do so.
> 
> There is more than enough information in the following link to address that.
> 
> Jim Crow Laws and Racial Segregation - Social Welfare History Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know why you're trying to convince me of what I already know.  Yeah, Jim Crow laws were very oppressive and racist.  And they were enacted by...DEMOCRATS.
Click to expand...


Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and  endorse Jim Crow laws. But I' would  not waste time trying to "convince" you of anything.  

You asked the question why I would state that integration and segregation were detrimental to black citizens and I pointed out the difference between segregation in the South and the North.

As usual,, your inability to read as opposed to parroting the same talking points with no credible sources keeps you ignorant and misinformed.

Here is yet more information on the transition of SOUTHERN Democrats to who you all are today.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...eiD3kKjy4Owb5OccQ&sig2=T28ImpKr4uj235YghUKeiQ


----------



## xband

Reparations are not due to blacks or whites because you have to be alive to get reparations. Some blacks are still alive who suffered JIm Crow laws and they are due reparations.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
Click to expand...


Their accomplishments were "greater" by default. 

As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

S.J. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, but racism, oppression, Jim Crow, KKK, segregation.  You know, all those things DEMOCRATS gave black people because they care so much about them.
Click to expand...

*Pointless Talking Points Dittoing the Clinic*

The Republicans held total national power during much of that time.  The Klan was against unions and sent thousands of its members to scab up North.  That's why the Republicans protected Jim Crow. 

 The Republicans were also big on tariffs at one time, so why don't Free Traders hold that against them?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery should have ended automatically, after 1808.  Whose fault was it, that did not happen?
Click to expand...

*Slavery Saved Them From Savagery*

The "fault" of those who didn't want to turn the whole country into a Detroit.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.


Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
Click to expand...


It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed 

How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
Click to expand...

You said Democrats who introduced Jim Crow laws evolved into Republicans.  You weren't talking about voters, you were talking about elected officials.  Stop ducking and name some.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said Democrats who introduced Jim Crow laws evolved into Republicans.  You weren't talking about voters, you were talking about elected officials.  Stop ducking and name some.
Click to expand...


More word semantics? You twisted my words to make them sound like what you wanted them to?

"Democrats, who have evolved into today's Republicans did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws" 

Is what was stated. You perfectly well what I was stating. Dead former democrats is all you've harped on.

Why have Democrats (especially of the white SOUTHERN variety) left that party over time?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said Democrats who introduced Jim Crow laws evolved into Republicans.  You weren't talking about voters, you were talking about elected officials.  Stop ducking and name some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More word semantics? You twisted my words to make them sound like what you wanted them to?
> 
> "Democrats, who have evolved into today's Republicans did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws"
> 
> Is what was stated. You perfectly well what I was stating. Dead former democrats is all you've harped on.
> 
> Why have Democrats (especially of the white SOUTHERN variety) left that party over time?
Click to expand...

Bullshit, you're ducking everything I've asked and you know it.  Go pound sand, we're done here.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do "poor whites" or Whites in general "get", for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
Click to expand...


The topic was lives lost in the Civil War. 

Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.

Please consider yourself ridiculed.

Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The right handed Jimi Hendrix has trouble coming to terms with being a slave to the Democratic Party so he has to make ridiculous claims that Democrats and Republicans "switched sides".  It's his way of deflecting, rather than acknowledging the fact that blacks, even though they bitch about it, really prefer slavery to freedom.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right handed Jimi Hendrix has trouble coming to terms with being a slave to the Democratic Party so he has to make ridiculous claims that Democrats and Republicans "switched sides".  It's his way of deflecting, rather than acknowledging the fact that blacks, even though they bitch about it, really prefer slavery to freedom.
Click to expand...


So says the "non reading, no source parrott" 

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time. 

The civil war is over and the republicans of that era are long deceased.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Again? What is this, your screen saver? 

One election. 41 years ago? 
Really?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
Click to expand...


 If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.

Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
And typical.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? What is this, your screen saver?
> 
> One election. 41 years ago?
> Really?
Click to expand...



One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.


If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.

Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
Click to expand...



Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
Click to expand...


Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.

Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.

The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.






Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SOUTHERN Democrats(who evolved into todays Republicans) did introduce and endorse Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? What is this, your screen saver?
> 
> One election. 41 years ago?
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.
> 
> 
> If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.
> 
> Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.
Click to expand...


Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer  by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.

The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
Click to expand...



Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.

His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.
> 
> Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some Democrats (besides Strom Thurmond) who became Republicans and vice versa.  You've been making that claim for a long time, now it's time to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? What is this, your screen saver?
> 
> One election. 41 years ago?
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.
> 
> 
> If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.
> 
> Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer  by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.
> 
> The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.
Click to expand...



If the South was HALF as racist as you claim, those rural masses would have been turned off by his support of civil rights.

Instead the rural areas and the older voters where were his support was strongest, among white voters.


----------



## danielpalos

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think we could get this, "for free" under Any form of Capitalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery should have ended automatically, after 1808.  Whose fault was it, that did not happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Slavery Saved Them From Savagery*
> 
> The "fault" of those who didn't want to turn the whole country into a Detroit.
Click to expand...

Like I said; just lousy management.  Labor is not getting paid to manage that City.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, it was "lousy management" in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
Click to expand...

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.
> 
> His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 
> The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Lincoln WAS NOT an abolitionist....let alone a "rabid" one.

The true abolitionists of that era believed that slavery should have been abolished and never should have even happened. They also believed that freed slaves should have been able to assimilate into society as equal citizens. Lincoln did NOT share those beliefs.

Lincoln looked at the future  economic impact of a manual labor system on an industrial process system and made the right business decision for the future of America....if he could have preserved the union and continued slavery, he would have done so.

Lincoln and Abolitionism | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.
> 
> Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact that numerous southern white voters left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights act was passed
> 
> How racism explains Republicans’ rise in the South
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? What is this, your screen saver?
> 
> One election. 41 years ago?
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.
> 
> 
> If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.
> 
> Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer  by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.
> 
> The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the South was HALF as racist as you claim, those rural masses would have been turned off by his support of civil rights.
> 
> Instead the rural areas and the older voters where were his support was strongest, among white voters.
Click to expand...


Nope. Carter was a born again Christian and a farmer from the deep South.

That appeal AND 92% of the black vote was enough for him to gain the votes to clinch the election.

However on a national basis Ford got more of the total white vote.....and substantially more in the 1980 election.


----------



## xotoxi

I think that residents in the states Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia should pay reparation to the people of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Nevada, and Oregon for acts of treason leading to war.  It should be a yearly payment of $100 per resident for the next 99 years.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.
> 
> His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 
> The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.
Click to expand...

*Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight*

SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains.  For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property.  So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops.  Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.


Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?


katsteve2012 said:


> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.


Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your non sequitur is noted and dismissed.
> 
> My point stands as the final word, until, if ever, you can bring yourself to actually address it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that put forth the argument that blacks deserve some sort of credit for the sacrifices of their ancestors.
> 
> I have asked you what you think whites deserve for the far greater and more selfless sacrifices of THEIR ancestors, in that case.
> 
> You have yet to answer that.
> 
> A lot of bullshit and babble, but no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
Click to expand...


Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.


----------



## Correll

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.
> 
> His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 
> The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight*
> 
> SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains.  For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property.  So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.
> 
> The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops.  Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.
Click to expand...



Not sure how any of that relates to anything I said, but thanks for playing.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about states rights and industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. The South wanted toveven expand slavery to western territories and the North wanted to preserve a predominately white labor force.
> 
> Slavery was an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again? What is this, your screen saver?
> 
> One election. 41 years ago?
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One election, after the Civil Rights Act, after Nixon supposedly started flipped the southern racists, thus disproving your claims.
> 
> 
> If not for the "racist southerns" Carter would have carried just 10 states out of 50, many of them tiny.
> 
> Yet, Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jimmy Carter was a southern farmer  by trade. He was from the south and appealed to the rural masses of the southern region.
> 
> The fact that he was a supporter of civil rights was pivotal in him obtaining 92% of the black vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the South was HALF as racist as you claim, those rural masses would have been turned off by his support of civil rights.
> 
> Instead the rural areas and the older voters where were his support was strongest, among white voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Carter was a born again Christian and a farmer from the deep South.
> 
> That appeal AND 92% of the black vote was enough for him to gain the votes to clinch the election.
> 
> However on a national basis Ford got more of the total white vote.....and substantially more in the 1980 election.
> 
> View attachment 128366
Click to expand...




1. Sure, there were reasons the SOuth voted for Carter. Obviously.

2. And  the supposed so horribly racist South, did not consider Carter's support of Civil Rights reason to vote against him. As was my point, that nothing you said, contradicted.

3. Not sure what point you are trying to make with the black vote number.

4. Nor with the national white vote.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their accomplishments were "greater" by default.
> 
> As a majority that suppressed, oppressed and in many cases exploited every group of minorities that ever arrived here, they ensured that their accomplishments often came at the expense of others....in some cases, even their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
Click to expand...

just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic was lives lost in the Civil War.
> 
> Your inability to read the word "sacrifice" and understand it's meaning is noted.
> 
> Please consider yourself ridiculed.
> 
> Your race baiting in noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
Click to expand...


It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.

I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.

So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
Click to expand...

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
Click to expand...


Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased. 

 I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to. 
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican. 
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
Click to expand...




Still no clue what you are trying to say.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
Click to expand...



Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.
> 
> So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.
Click to expand...


No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.

The election results of 1980, which was  when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

1976 Presidential General Election Results


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Correll said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider the truth to be "race baiting" so be it.
> 
> Your blatent misrepresentation of the real reason that the war was actually fought is noted......and ridiculous.
> And typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.
> 
> His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 
> The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight*
> 
> SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains.  For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property.  So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.
> 
> The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops.  Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how any of that relates to anything I said, but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

*The Way Yankees Obviously Viewed Indians Was the Way They Viewed Blacks*

You think Northerners were Liberals about race back then and different from the way they are now?  They felt the South wanted to take over the North; that's why they fought.  Just because the South only made one invasion, at Gettysburg, doesn't mean the North felt it was only about secession and not about defending their own territory.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.


You think every election is about race?  You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country?  You are truly clueless.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> You think every election is about race?  You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country?  You are truly clueless.
Click to expand...


I don't think that EVERY election is about race or even welfare as you do. But Reagan gained many votes by way of his own "race card". Educate yourself.

The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no clue what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808.  The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> You think every election is about race?  You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country?  You are truly clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't think that EVERY election is about race or even welfare as you do. But Reagan gained many votes by way of his own "race card". Educate yourself.*
> 
> The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency
Click to expand...

Dude, you are a fucking moron.  The only threads I see you participating in are about race and racism.  Don't try to include me in your obsession.  It's the only thing in your miserable life.  BTW, your link is a fucking joke, just like Jimmy Carter.  His own party thought he was a joke.  For you to claim Reagan won because of racism is utterly ridiculous.  I would feel sorry for you but you're too much of a jerk.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> You think every election is about race?  You don't think 12.4% inflation, double digit interest rates, and a series of foreign policy blunders had anything to do with Carter losing nearly every state in the country?  You are truly clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't think that EVERY election is about race or even welfare as you do. But Reagan gained many votes by way of his own "race card". Educate yourself.*
> 
> The racism at the heart of the Reagan presidency
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you are a fucking moron.  The only threads I see you participating in are about race and racism.  Don't try to include me in your obsession.  It's the only thing in your miserable life.  BTW, your link is a fucking joke, just like Jimmy Carter.  His own party thought he was a joke.  For you to claim Reagan won because of racism is utterly ridiculous.  I would feel sorry for you but you're too much of a jerk.
Click to expand...


You have got to be one of the most idiotic individuals  to ever post here. Not only can you NOT read, you flat out refuse to. 

I did not state that Reagan "won because of racism" but there has been more than passing thoughts of race being a FACTOR in his campaign by far brighter minds than yours.

You have  claimed since you started this silly thread with no proof, or even one single credible source that "The black population votes Democrat for a welfare check". That's about race, isn't it?

Why do the majority of Asians and Hispanics vote Democrat? What's their reason?

And since youre so obsessed with what I post,  you can do a message search on anyone...just follow the instructions.....and while you are at it try learning to use Google to provide some intelligent thought behind some of the BS that you have the nerve to post. 

Dumbass.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> You have got to be one of the most idiotic individuals to ever post here. Not only can you NOT read, you flat out refuse to.


I read just fine.  You just don't like that I don't accept your propaganda.  You've posted nothing but opinions from idiots like yourself, then get upset because I point it out.


katsteve2012 said:


> I did not state that Reagan "won because of racism" but there has been more than passing thoughts of race being a FACTOR in his campaign by far brighter minds than yours.


"Passing thoughts of race being a factor".  "Thoughts" being the operative word.  IOW, you posted an opinion from a biased source (like all of your other links).


katsteve2012 said:


> You have claimed since you started this silly thread with no proof, or even one single credible source that "The black population votes Democrat for a welfare check". That's about race, isn't it?


Yep, and it's a legitimate point.  And the common denominator, as well as the common issue with the black vote is, and always has been, welfare.  Blacks vote for the party that offers them a free ride.  You think this country owes you a fucking living.

BTW, Dumbass, you really don't need to sign your name to your posts.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have got to be one of the most idiotic individuals to ever post here. Not only can you NOT read, you flat out refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> I read just fine.  You just don't like that I don't accept your propaganda.  You've posted nothing but opinions from idiots like yourself, then get upset because I point it out.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not state that Reagan "won because of racism" but there has been more than passing thoughts of race being a FACTOR in his campaign by far brighter minds than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Passing thoughts of race being a factor".  "Thoughts" being the operative word.  IOW, you posted an opinion from a biased source (like all of your other links).
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have claimed since you started this silly thread with no proof, or even one single credible source that "The black population votes Democrat for a welfare check". That's about race, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, and it's a legitimate point.  And the common denominator, as well as the common issue with the black vote is, and always has been, welfare.  Blacks vote for the party that offers them a free ride.  You think this country owes you a fucking living.
> 
> BTW, Dumbass, you really don't need to sign your name to your posts.
Click to expand...


Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.

And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.

I don't really care at all if it bothers you that I will at least post a link with a thought....
You are not obligated to read what I post.

In case you didnt notice, most individuals here do so to encourage intelligent conversations and share diverse opinions...but since "intelligence" is not one the few attributes that you possess, that would be an impossible task for your one brain cell.

You're an oxygen thief if there ever was one...and why do Asians and Hispanics vote predominately Democrat? 

Or did you even know that?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.


Do you support affirmative action?  Quotas?  Preferential hiring because you're a minority?


katsteve2012 said:


> And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.


Sorry to rain on your parade but statistics say otherwise, buddy.
Welfare Statistics and Demographics - Statistic Brain

The white man has paved every road imaginable for the black man to try to bring him into civilized society and the black man has proven repeatedly he prefers dependency over independence.  150 years of freedom and all he has to show for it is his EBT card.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support affirmative action?  Quotas?  Preferential hiring because you're a minority?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade but statistics say otherwise, buddy.
> Welfare Statistics and Demogr rhetoricaphics - Statistic Brain
> 
> The white man has paved every road imaginable for the black man to try to bring him into civilized society and the black man has proven repeatedly he prefers dependency over independence.  150 years of freedom and all he has to show for it is his EBT card.
Click to expand...


Lol! Here We go with the "great white man" rhetoric.

There  certainly SOME well meaning white "people" (women included) who joined the Civil rights movement to help extend rights to black citizens that should have ALREADY been in place, but were not, because of the "righteous white man"........."buddy".


And there certainly are SOME progressive thinking white people in the world who believe in doing the right thing by all people.

Then there is the ignorant, uneducated, low information, bottom rung of white society occupied by those like you,

 I think the reason that you are like a broken record about welfare is because you have likely been a recipient of it.

Did you actually read your own link? You should have noticed that the numbers did not include Medicaid which is considered a social safety net as well.

I will congratulate you for posting ONE link. But where in the one that you posted are there any credible statistics that support your "theory" that black voters vote Democrat for a welfare check?

There are likely thousands of black voters who earn more money than you will ever see in your lifetime that vote as democrats. 

And what about Asians and Hispanics?

Why do they vote predominately Democrat? This is like the 4th time that I have asked you the same question.


----------



## Gracie

Reparation? Nope. Or the other way around.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support affirmative action?  Quotas?  Preferential hiring because you're a minority?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade but statistics say otherwise, buddy.
> Welfare Statistics and Demogr rhetoricaphics - Statistic Brain
> 
> The white man has paved every road imaginable for the black man to try to bring him into civilized society and the black man has proven repeatedly he prefers dependency over independence.  150 years of freedom and all he has to show for it is his EBT card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! Here We go with the "great white man" rhetoric.
> 
> There were certainly some well meaning white "people" (women included) who joined the Civil rights movement to help extend rights to black citizens that should have ALREADY been in place, but were not because of the "righteous white man"........."buddy".
> 
> 
> And there certainly are some progressive thinking white people in the world who believe in doing the right thing by all people.
> 
> Then there is the ignorant, uneducated, low information, bottom rung of white society occupied by those like you,
> 
> I think the reason that you are like a broken record about welfare is because you have likely been a recipient of it.
> 
> Did you actually read your own link? You should have noticed that the numbers did not include Medicaid which is considered a social safety net as well.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you answer my question, or address the statistics in the link I posted?


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support affirmative action?  Quotas?  Preferential hiring because you're a minority?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade but statistics say otherwise, buddy.
> Welfare Statistics and Demogr rhetoricaphics - Statistic Brain
> 
> The white man has paved every road imaginable for the black man to try to bring him into civilized society and the black man has proven repeatedly he prefers dependency over independence.  150 years of freedom and all he has to show for it is his EBT card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! Here We go with the "great white man" rhetoric.
> 
> There were certainly some well meaning white "people" (women included) who joined the Civil rights movement to help extend rights to black citizens that should have ALREADY been in place, but were not because of the "righteous white man"........."buddy".
> 
> 
> And there certainly are some progressive thinking white people in the world who believe in doing the right thing by all people.
> 
> Then there is the ignorant, uneducated, low information, bottom rung of white society occupied by those like you,
> 
> I think the reason that you are like a broken record about welfare is because you have likely been a recipient of it.
> 
> Did you actually read your own link? You should have noticed that the numbers did not include Medicaid which is considered a social safety net as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you answer my question, or address the statistics in the link I posted?
Click to expand...



WTF?! You did not ask me a question. Do I need to tell you what you posted as well? Read what you stated in your last post. SMGDH.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again stupid. I don't think the country "owes" me a thing except the same rights as any other tax paying citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you support affirmative action?  Quotas?  Preferential hiring because you're a minority?*
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no you DO NOT have a legitimate point about there being a correlation between black voters and welfare. If there any legitimacy in that theory there would be anarchy in the streets by every undercover yahoo Klucker like you in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade but statistics say otherwise, buddy.
> Welfare Statistics and Demogr rhetoricaphics - Statistic Brain
> 
> The white man has paved every road imaginable for the black man to try to bring him into civilized society and the black man has proven repeatedly he prefers dependency over independence.  150 years of freedom and all he has to show for it is his EBT card.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! Here We go with the "great white man" rhetoric.
> 
> There were certainly some well meaning white "people" (women included) who joined the Civil rights movement to help extend rights to black citizens that should have ALREADY been in place, but were not because of the "righteous white man"........."buddy".
> 
> 
> And there certainly are some progressive thinking white people in the world who believe in doing the right thing by all people.
> 
> Then there is the ignorant, uneducated, low information, bottom rung of white society occupied by those like you,
> 
> I think the reason that you are like a broken record about welfare is because you have likely been a recipient of it.
> 
> Did you actually read your own link? You should have noticed that the numbers did not include Medicaid which is considered a social safety net as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why didn't you answer my question, or address the statistics in the link I posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?! You did not ask me a question. Do I need to tell you what you posted as well? Read what you stated in your last post. SMGDH.
Click to expand...

You just posted it, stupid.  It's the first thing you quoted.  What an idiot.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I don't read your every word.


But you quote it?


katsteve2012 said:


> The answer is NO I do NOT believe that being a minority is an automatic qualification for being hired or selected for any opportunity.
> 
> At one time, decades ago it was necessary because the effects of generational poverty on many families due to oppressive laws needed correcting.


First you say you don't believe in it, then you defend and justify it.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth, buddy.


katsteve2012 said:


> What I believe in, is communities being self supporting and self reliant.


Then why do you defend their unwillingness to be self reliant?


katsteve2012 said:


> And that means that EVERY black dollar earned should be reinvested in its own community..


You mean every dollar the taxpayers give them.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't read your every word.
> 
> 
> 
> But you quote it?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is NO I do NOT believe that being a minority is an automatic qualification for being hired or selected for any opportunity.
> 
> At one time, decades ago it was necessary because the effects of generational poverty on many families due to oppressive laws needed correcting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you say you don't believe in it, then you defend and justify it.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth, buddy.
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I believe in, is communities being self supporting and self reliant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you defend their unwillingness to be self reliant?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that means that EVERY black dollar earned should be reinvested in its own community..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean every dollar the taxpayers give them.
Click to expand...


I figured that I wasted time even trying to answer you in a civil manner. 

Here is a clue, you fucking  idiot.....do a post search and find one where I endorse what you say.

You're not worth my time. Fuck off.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I figured that I wasted time even trying to answer you in a civil manner.


Of course you figured that.  You're more comfortable throwing out the F word.


katsteve2012 said:


> Here is a clue, you fucking idiot.....do a post search and find one where I endorse what you say.
> 
> You're not worth my time. Fuck off.


See what I mean?
Goodnight, Jimi.  You're dismissed.


----------



## IM2

Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?


It's no more absurd than blacks receiving reparations from whites (who died to free them).  The difference is that whites aren't asking for them.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.
> 
> So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was  when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 1976 Presidential General Election Results
> 
> View attachment 128521
Click to expand...



So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.

1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.

2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.

3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,

4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, *went with the REST OF THE COUNTY*, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".




Dude....


You are absurd.




You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.


----------



## Correll

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Are you claiming the Civil War was not about slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. It was about industrializing the entire country and preserving the United States. Slavery wss an inconvienient hinderance in the way of progress.
> 
> The fact that slaves were freed was only a necessary by product of the process.
> 
> In Lincoln's own words..."I can think of no greater calamity than the assimilation of blacks into society as the white mans equal".
> 
> There was no "humanitarian sacrifice"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was well know as a rabid Abolitionist and the voters knew that and knew that the South would resist.
> 
> His attempts of diplomacy with the Southerns, whom he conquered and ruined, should be taken with a large grain of salt.
> 
> The soldiers of the North were not stupid. THey knew that slavery was the cause of the war, and they supported LIncoln enough to fight and die for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Abolitionists' Daddies Bought Them Exemption From Having to Fight*
> 
> SCROTUS's Dred Scott decision authorized slaveholders to bring their Africans into the free states. But Northerners didn't want untamed savages on their land, even if they came in chains.  For one thing, the slaveholders would have turned them loose at night to loot their opponents' property.  So Northerners fought to keep the South from taking over the North with its peculiar institution.
> 
> The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops.  Only those who consider the working class to be inferior believe that the North had moral superiority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how any of that relates to anything I said, but thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Way Yankees Obviously Viewed Indians Was the Way They Viewed Blacks*
> 
> You think Northerners were Liberals about race back then and different from the way they are now?  They felt the South wanted to take over the North; that's why they fought.  Just because the South only made one invasion, at Gettysburg, doesn't mean the North felt it was only about secession and not about defending their own territory.
Click to expand...




If the motivation factor of the North was defensive, they could have negotiated an end to the fighting avoiding YEARS of blood shed and saved hundreds of thousands of Union lives after the Gettysburg invasion has been thrown back.


But the north kept fighting until the South was crushed and forced to remain in the Union* without slavery*.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. I can't be bothered to try to strain any meaning from it at this point in time.
> 
> 
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no clue what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808.  The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
Click to expand...




And this relates to the topic or something I said how? 

(also, your eminent domain comment makes zero sense in the limited context provided.)


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just clueless and Causeless, typical right winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no clue what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808.  The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this relates to the topic or something I said how?
> 
> (also, your eminent domain comment makes zero sense in the limited context provided.)
Click to expand...

it was a management problem:

It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my job to learn your personal language. Sometimes I can pick up some of your meanings, other times I can't be bothered to even try.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are CAPABLE of being clear, but that you chose to NOT be clear, in your ongoing attempt to hide that you are an Enemy of America and Americans.
> 
> So, if you want to make a point, in normal every day English, go right ahead, and I'll almost certainly respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no clue what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808.  The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this relates to the topic or something I said how?
> 
> (also, your eminent domain comment makes zero sense in the limited context provided.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it was a management problem:
> 
> It was a Cause; the North should have insisted on an Order to Show Cause before Congress, assembled, to get some results instead of making excuses.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you mean nor how it relates to the topic nor anything I have said.

Why do you choose to fail to communicate nearly ALL THE TIME?


----------



## danielpalos

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.




Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
Click to expand...

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
Click to expand...



ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept. 


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning. 

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
Click to expand...

lousy management.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy management.
Click to expand...



So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.
> 
> So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was  when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 1976 Presidential General Election Results
> 
> View attachment 128521
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.
> 
> 1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.
> 
> 2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.
> 
> 3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,
> 
> 4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, *went with the REST OF THE COUNTY*, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude....
> 
> 
> You are absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.
Click to expand...


 Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?



One last time I will repeat:

*White SOUTHERN  lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise. 

It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started.  You can deny that  to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.

*The lame attempt by those  like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.

*The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the  voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.

 Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.



This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.

It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.

 And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.

You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?
> 
> 
> 
> It's no more absurd than blacks receiving reparations from whites (who died to free them).  The difference is that whites aren't asking for them.
Click to expand...


The problem is that whites did not die to free them. And after that we had a system of segregation that lasted longer than slavery did if we count the start of the nation from 1776. This is a stupid argument that makes no sense, has no merit, is  based on a false equivalence that a sane and mentally stable person would not even try arguing.


----------



## IM2

Also maybe it's time dumb whites understood that slave masters did get reparations for slaves they lost when the emancipation proclamation was signed. Then go learn what reparations actually are and why they are awarded.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".
> 
> Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
Click to expand...

a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
> Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.
> 
> So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was  when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 1976 Presidential General Election Results
> 
> View attachment 128521
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.
> 
> 1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.
> 
> 2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.
> 
> 3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,
> 
> 4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, *went with the REST OF THE COUNTY*, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude....
> 
> 
> You are absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?
> 
> 
> 
> One last time I will repeat:
> 
> *White SOUTHERN  lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise.
> 
> It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
> That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started.  You can deny that  to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.
> 
> *The lame attempt by those  like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.
> 
> *The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the  voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.
> 
> Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.
> 
> It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.
> 
> And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.
> 
> You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.
Click to expand...




1. If the divide in support for Civil Rights was not dem vs republican, then why you think that it had anything to do with the south flipping from dem to republican?

2. the GOP as a party was pro-civil rights long before it was cool and was all along. A few southern exceptions does not change that.

3. Jimmy Carter massive success in the South, leading him to win the Presidency, does argue against the reasons you claim for the long term shift of the South, ie that is was because of Race.

4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.


5. Winning all but one southern state, is a near sweep.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.
> 
> And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
Click to expand...



Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.


The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
Click to expand...

Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".  

The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.
> 
> 
> But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.
> 
> Even as a thought exercise in What If.
> 
> And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> lousy management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
Click to expand...



People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?
> 
> 
> 
> It's no more absurd than blacks receiving reparations from whites (who died to free them).  The difference is that whites aren't asking for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them. And after that we had a system of segregation that lasted longer than slavery did if we count the start of the nation from 1776. This is a stupid argument that makes no sense, has no merit, is  based on a false equivalence that a sane and mentally stable person would not even try arguing.
Click to expand...


Correct. I've stated the same point. You will actually encounter people in this forum who will insist that there was no difference between Southern and Northern Democrats and Republicans, that the "War for States" rights was a noble effort to "free the slaves", and black citizens owe a debt of gratitude to those who fought in the war.....in spite of the fact that Jim Crow laws took effect almost immediately after the war and stayed in effect right up until the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964...legislation that really never should have had to be passed, because rights should have been in effect to begin with. 

No gratitude owed.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.
> 
> I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
> It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
> You just refuse to acknowledge history.
> 
> Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.
> 
> So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.
> 
> The election results of 1980, which was  when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.
> 
> 1976 Presidential General Election Results
> 
> View attachment 128521
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.
> 
> 1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.
> 
> 2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.
> 
> 3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,
> 
> 4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, *went with the REST OF THE COUNTY*, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude....
> 
> 
> You are absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?
> 
> 
> 
> One last time I will repeat:
> 
> *White SOUTHERN  lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise.
> 
> It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
> That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started.  You can deny that  to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.
> 
> *The lame attempt by those  like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.
> 
> *The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the  voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.
> 
> Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.
> 
> It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.
> 
> And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.
> 
> You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If the divide in support for Civil Rights was not dem vs republican, then why you think that it had anything to do with the south flipping from dem to republican?
> 
> 2. the GOP as a party was pro-civil rights long before it was cool and was all along. A few southern exceptions does not change that.
> 
> 3. Jimmy Carter massive success in the South, leading him to win the Presidency, does argue against the reasons you claim for the long term shift of the South, ie that is was because of Race.
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil R
> 
> 5. Winning all but one southern state, is a near sweep.
Click to expand...



You never qualified you assertion of "sweep" applying only to the south.

As far as you glorifying The GOP ss being pro civil rights as a whole, there was a clear division in ideology across geography. The South was not.

"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not."

"Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns, as Trende showed, had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party."

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.


Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
Click to expand...


Not denial. TRUTH.


----------



## S.J.

Correll said:


> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.


Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
Click to expand...

Thanks again.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again.
Click to expand...


I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,

*The Civil War and emancipation* 
1861 - 1865



> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*



The Civil War


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
Click to expand...

Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
Click to expand...


Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. There was nothing to appreciate.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
Click to expand...

Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
Click to expand...


Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in the civil war.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in the civil war.
Click to expand...

Face the fact that you were better off as slaves.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> The Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face the fact that you were better off as slaves.
Click to expand...


Face the fact that whites have got their reparations.. We can start with the homestead act if you would like to take a good long look at how whites got their reparations.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face the fact that you were better off as slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face the fact that whites have got their reparations.. We can start with the homestead act if you would like to take a good long look at how whites got their reparations.
Click to expand...

Face the fact that after 50 years of affirmative action, government grants, and welfare, you STILL can't stand on your own two feet without the white man propping you up.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face the fact that you were better off as slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face the fact that whites have got their reparations.. We can start with the homestead act if you would like to take a good long look at how whites got their reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face the fact that after 50 years of affirmative action, government grants, and welfare, you STILL can't stand on your own two feet without the white man propping you up.
Click to expand...


Well again we are talking about whites getting reparations,  Now since whites are the prime benefactor of all those things all this does is show you just how much whites have been paid.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lousy management.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?
> 
> 
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...



I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.

You finally made a real point. 

I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.

ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.



Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.




People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that whites did not die to free them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about denial.  Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not denial. TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,
> 
> *The Civil War and emancipation*
> 1861 - 1865
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War
Click to expand...



Absolutely. As MLK once stated:

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.
Click to expand...


Don't you white racists ever tire of being disingenuous?

These things were bi partisan. And since you don't want to talk about 150 years ago, then don't talk about the democratic party of 150 years ago.

In the meantime, you started this thread and based it on terms of race.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you white racists ever tire of being disingenuous?
> 
> These things were bi partisan. And since you don't want to talk about 150 years ago, then don't talk about the democratic party of 150 years ago.
> 
> In the meantime, you started this thread and based it on terms of race.
Click to expand...



The current portion of the thread is a that Katsteven claimed that the South went from the dems to the republican due to racism, post 1964 civil rights act.


I pointed out that Carter nearly swept the South in 1976,


He dismisses that as unimportant but then points to Reagan's win 4 YEARS LATER, as further evidence that the south of the 20th is just as racist as the south of the 19th. 

For reasons that he has not made clear.

The Conventional Wisdom crafted by lefty academia and media is that the alleged "southern strategy" of Nixon, is what flipped the SOuth, from the early 60s to present day.

Thus, this discussion of the past, is completely relevant to today.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you white racists ever tire of being disingenuous?
> 
> These things were bi partisan. And since you don't want to talk about 150 years ago, then don't talk about the democratic party of 150 years ago.
> 
> In the meantime, you started this thread and based it on terms of race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The current portion of the thread is a that Katsteven claimed that the South went from the dems to the republican due to racism, post 1964 civil rights act.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Carter nearly swept the South in 1976,
> 
> 
> He dismisses that as unimportant but then points to Reagan's win 4 YEARS LATER, as further evidence that the south of the 20th is just as racist as the south of the 19th.
> 
> For reasons that he has not made clear.
> 
> The Conventional Wisdom crafted by lefty academia and media is that the alleged "southern strategy" of Nixon, is what flipped the SOuth, from the early 60s to present day.
> 
> Thus, this discussion of the past, is completely relevant to today.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with what you have been pointing out. My point is that SJ is a pathetic lying white dude who refuses to see the disingenuous argument he wages in this thread. That includes the way he has avoided the truth in the matters you have  presented to him.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who benefitted by their deaths, dumb shit?  But did the slaves appreciate it?  No.  They sold themselves back into slavery to the Democratic Party as soon as they were offered something for nothing, and remain there today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you white racists ever tire of being disingenuous?
> 
> These things were bi partisan. And since you don't want to talk about 150 years ago, then don't talk about the democratic party of 150 years ago.
> 
> In the meantime, you started this thread and based it on terms of race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The current portion of the thread is a that Katsteven claimed that the South went from the dems to the republican due to racism, post 1964 civil rights act.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Carter nearly swept the South in 1976,
> 
> 
> He dismisses that as unimportant but then points to Reagan's win 4 YEARS LATER, as further evidence that the south of the 20th is just as racist as the south of the 19th.
> 
> For reasons that he has not made clear.
> 
> The Conventional Wisdom crafted by lefty academia and media is that the alleged "southern strategy" of Nixon, is what flipped the SOuth, from the early 60s to present day.
> 
> Thus, this discussion of the past, is completely relevant to today.
Click to expand...


Yet again. More of your conveniently selective  interpretations of what I stated.

From the outset of this insipid thread, I stated that Northern Democratic and Republican lawmakers as is proven by historical fact were the primary supporters of the passing of the civil rights act, and the southern states have  had a history of opposition to equality in civil rights. You tried to present Carters victory in 1976 as evidence of this not being the case. 

There are a plethora of credible sources that attribute much of his victory in the south to him being from that region and having a rural farming past life. His support of civil rights equality helped him gain 92% of the black vote.

If you are a registered voter, you should know thst elections are cyclical and emotions play a role in their outcome. The inarticulate, boorish, rube who is currently in office is evidence of that fact.


----------



## IM2

The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.

Why Did The South Turn Republican?

There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.

why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results



The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
Click to expand...


Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.

There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.
> 
> You finally made a real point.
> 
> I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.
> 
> ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
Click to expand...


Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy?  there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.

With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests.  Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
Click to expand...

 
It is difficult to believe how anyone can not acknowledge the evolution of party  loyalties in the southern states as a result of this.

There are some out there like the "person" who started this thread who actually believe it to be a conspiracy theory, and that the Democratic and Republican parties are  identical to what they both were over 100 years ago.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is difficult to believe how anyone can not acknowledge the evolution of party  loyalties in the southern states as a result of this.
> 
> There are some out there like the "person" who started this thread who actually believe it to be a conspiracy theory, and that the Democratic and Republican parties are  identical to what they both were over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...


Idiots exist and they seem to specifically congregate in places like this one. Now as for Cornel, I don't understand that argument because it's well known what happened and how things switched.


----------



## S.J.

It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.


dude; black men Won the right to vote.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> I have no problem with what you have been pointing out. My point is that SJ is a pathetic lying white dude who refuses to see the disingenuous argument he wages in this thread. That includes the way he has *avoided the truth* in the matters you have presented to him.


You avoid the truth that after 150 years of freedom you're still living the way you lived in the jungle.  Look at any black neighborhood.  All you ever do is blame whitey, even though whitey has been carrying your sorry asses for over 50 years.  You expect it, and when somebody points out your failure as a race, you come up with every excuse imaginable (no matter how absurd) to make it somebody else's fault.  You can't face reality.


----------



## S.J.

danielpalos said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
Click to expand...

What's your point?


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with what you have been pointing out. My point is that SJ is a pathetic lying white dude who refuses to see the disingenuous argument he wages in this thread. That includes the way he has *avoided the truth* in the matters you have presented to him.
> 
> 
> 
> You avoid the truth that after 150 years of freedom you're still living the way you lived in the jungle.  Look at any black neighborhood.  All you ever do is blame whitey, even though whitey has been carrying your sorry asses for over 50 years.  You expect it, and when somebody points out your failure as a race, you come up with every excuse imaginable (no matter how absurd) to make it somebody else's fault.  You can't face reality.
Click to expand...


The fact is we have carried your asses for 399 years. That's reality.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.



Nah. You might really want to take a look at the white backlash to such things before you run your mouth.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...

there is no free ride.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You might really want to take a look at the white backlash to such things before you run your mouth.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look in the mirror and ax yourself who bears the ultimate responsibility for your own damn life.  What is it that you think you need from the white man that you haven't already gotten that will elevate you out of your dependency?


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You might really want to take a look at the white backlash to such things before you run your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might want to take a look in the mirror and ax yourself who bears the ultimate responsibility for your own damn life.  What is it that you think you need from the white man that you haven't already gotten that will elevate you out of your dependency?
Click to expand...


Nah, that's what you need t do.


----------



## S.J.

danielpalos said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no free ride.
Click to expand...

Welfare for doing nothing is a free ride, pal.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You might really want to take a look at the white backlash to such things before you run your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might want to take a look in the mirror and ax yourself who bears the ultimate responsibility for your own damn life.  What is it that you think you need from the white man that you haven't already gotten that will elevate you out of your dependency?
Click to expand...

why do capitalists complain about taxes, instead of doubling autoworker wages to make fun of lousy capitalists who cannot even double minimum  wages.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no free ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare for doing nothing is a free ride, pal.
Click to expand...


Like pretty much what whites have done since they got here.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no free ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare for doing nothing is a free ride, pal.
Click to expand...

A capital gains tax preference for not creating Jobs Booms, is the same thing.  The capital gains preference still exists and does nothing to solve simple poverty.  End that, so I know you are not all talk and no action.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You might really want to take a look at the white backlash to such things before you run your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might want to take a look in the mirror and ax yourself who bears the ultimate responsibility for your own damn life.  What is it that you think you need from the white man that you haven't already gotten that will elevate you out of your dependency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, that's what you need t do.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who blames racism for all his failures.


----------



## S.J.

danielpalos said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always the white man's racism that is to blame for the failure of black people to take advantage of opportunities given to them since the Civil War, then later with the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1964.  All they can do is keep demanding more laws to be passed that give them something for nothing.  They reject opportunities for free jobs training, they consider that an insult.  No, they want the free ride, and their voting patterns prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no free ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare for doing nothing is a free ride, pal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A capital gains tax preference for not creating Jobs Booms, is the same thing.  The capital gains preference still exists and does nothing to solve simple poverty.  End that, so I know you are not all talk and no action.
Click to expand...

Nobody owes you a fucking living.  You have access to everything the white man has access to.  It's not my problem you're not motivated or educated enough to take advantage of the opportunities you have in this country.  You would rather just do nothing and blame racism.


----------



## danielpalos

S.J. said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; black men Won the right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no free ride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Welfare for doing nothing is a free ride, pal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A capital gains tax preference for not creating Jobs Booms, is the same thing.  The capital gains preference still exists and does nothing to solve simple poverty.  End that, so I know you are not all talk and no action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody owes you a fucking living.  You have access to everything the white man has access to.  It's not my problem you're not motivated or educated enough to take advantage of the opportunities you have in this country.  You would rather just do nothing and blame racism.
Click to expand...

Georgia does.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were not fighting for backs to be free. *There was nothing to appreciate*.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you feel that way about everything, which is why every neighborhood you move into ends up looking like Skid Row.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just face the fact that you were shown that whites did not fight and die to free blacks in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Katsteve thinks in terms of race.  He sees it as the deciding factor in any election.  If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism.  If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head.  The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you white racists ever tire of being disingenuous?
> 
> These things were bi partisan. And since you don't want to talk about 150 years ago, then don't talk about the democratic party of 150 years ago.
> 
> In the meantime, you started this thread and based it on terms of race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The current portion of the thread is a that Katsteven claimed that the South went from the dems to the republican due to racism, post 1964 civil rights act.
> 
> 
> I pointed out that Carter nearly swept the South in 1976,
> 
> 
> He dismisses that as unimportant but then points to Reagan's win 4 YEARS LATER, as further evidence that the south of the 20th is just as racist as the south of the 19th.
> 
> For reasons that he has not made clear.
> 
> The Conventional Wisdom crafted by lefty academia and media is that the alleged "southern strategy" of Nixon, is what flipped the SOuth, from the early 60s to present day.
> 
> Thus, this discussion of the past, is completely relevant to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet again. More of your conveniently selective  interpretations of what I stated.
> 
> From the outset of this insipid thread, I stated that Northern Democratic and Republican lawmakers as is proven by historical fact were the primary supporters of the passing of the civil rights act, and the southern states have  had a history of opposition to equality in civil rights. You tried to present Carters victory in 1976 as evidence of this not being the case.
> 
> There are a plethora of credible sources that attribute much of his victory in the south to him being from that region and having a rural farming past life. His support of civil rights equality helped him gain 92% of the black vote.
> 
> If you are a registered voter, you should know thst elections are cyclical and emotions play a role in their outcome. The inarticulate, boorish, rube who is currently in office is evidence of that fact.
Click to expand...



And his support of civil rights, seems to have not hurt him at all with the white voters.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results




THe Dixiecrats were in the late 40s. 

Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights. He did more to integrate the south than anyone.

This is a fucking moronic myth.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
Click to expand...



An adviser took credit for a change in his bosses favor? Gee, that never happens.


1. There is no evidence that Atwater EVER mentioned this to Nixon, nor recommended any actions or policies to pander to white southern racist.

2. There was no policies nor actions taken to attract white racists in the South. THe closest Nixon did to that was to FORCE desegregation thought quickly so as to have it be a dead issue by the time of his re-election. Hardly the way to endear him to racists.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
Click to expand...



There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.
> 
> 
> The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.
> 
> You finally made a real point.
> 
> I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.
> 
> ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy?  there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.
> 
> With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests.  Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.
Click to expand...




YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?


The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations. 

Which is exactly what happened.

Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> An adviser took credit for a change in his bosses favor? Gee, that never happens.
> 
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that Atwater EVER mentioned this to Nixon, nor recommended any actions or policies to pander to white southern racist.
> 
> 2. There was no policies nor actions taken to attract white racists in the South. THe closest Nixon did to that was to FORCE desegregation thought quickly so as to have it be a dead issue by the time of his re-election. Hardly the way to endear him to racists.
Click to expand...


Then explain why the south is primarily republican today.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
Click to expand...



From that right wing rag, The New York Times.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’


"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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe Dixiecrats were in the late 40s.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights. He did more to integrate the south than anyone.
> 
> This is a fucking moronic myth.
Click to expand...

l

Nixon was moderate at best on civil rights issues. He carefully sought ways to appease traditional SOUTHERN segregationist, and "appear" to take action on issues related to integration.

"The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the south. Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationists (those supporting school segregation), and liberal Democrats who supported integration. He supported integration in principle, but he was opposed to the use of busing (using bus systems to transport African American students to previously all-white school districts and vice versa) to force integration. Nixon's goals were partly political; he hoped to retain the support of southern conservatives, many of whom had voted Republican for the first time in the 1964 and 1968 elections. *These southern voters had been alienated from the Democratic party by Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights legislation; to capitalize on this, Nixon tried to get the issue of desegregation out of the way with as little damage as possible."*

Source:://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-conservative-turn-of-america-1968-1989-30/the-nixon-administration-224/civil-rights-under-nixon-1264-6479/


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
Click to expand...


Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.

Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing here is that the dixiecrats who were southern democrats did primarily switch to the republican party due to integration.  There may be several reasons outside of the fact that one wants to claim that Carter swept the south as a bass that it was not so. Number 1 being that  no one  wanted more Nixon and saw Ford as an extension of Nixon. There was a reason why Regan began is campaign in  the town where the 3 slain civil rights workers were found dead sneaking in favor of states rights. Yes there was a southern strategy. The leftist academia did not make this up, a republican political operative did. Reagan did appeal to racism  and what Reagan started created what we see today in Trump.
> 
> Why Did The South Turn Republican?
> 
> There are a range of opinions on this matter so I added the link to a search about this.
> 
> why did the south turn fro democrat to republican - Yahoo Search Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe Dixiecrats were in the late 40s.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights. He did more to integrate the south than anyone.
> 
> This is a fucking moronic myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> l
> 
> Nixon was moderate at best on civil rights issues. He carefully sought ways to appease traditional SOUTHERN segregationist, and "appear" to take action on issues related to integration.
> 
> "The Nixon years witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the south. Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationists (those supporting school segregation), and liberal Democrats who supported integration. He supported integration in principle, but he was opposed to the use of busing (using bus systems to transport African American students to previously all-white school districts and vice versa) to force integration. Nixon's goals were partly political; he hoped to retain the support of southern conservatives, many of whom had voted Republican for the first time in the 1964 and 1968 elections. *These southern voters had been alienated from the Democratic party by Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights legislation; to capitalize on this, Nixon tried to get the issue of desegregation out of the way with as little damage as possible."*
> 
> Source:://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/the-conservative-turn-of-america-1968-1989-30/the-nixon-administration-224/civil-rights-under-nixon-1264-6479/
Click to expand...




And the way he got the issue out of the way was to slam it though as quickly as possible so that by the time of his reelection it would be a dead issue.

Hardly a "middle road".

And certainly NOT a policy that would support the nonsense of the "Southern Strategy".


AND as discussed in the link I provided, republican support was from the expanding, more educated middle class and northerns who had moved south.

The poorer, more backwards, less educated rural and older voters stayed dem.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
Click to expand...



Did you read this part?


"The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."



If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated. 

Instead it is the other way around.


What political affiliation did your parents have?


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
Click to expand...


I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Click to expand...



You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights. 

THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican political operative that you mention was Lee Atwater. The following is the full audio interview with him regarding The Southern Strategy
> 
> Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
Click to expand...




"Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.

acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.” 


*


Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
Click to expand...


Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform. 

His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.

The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party. 

Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration. 

But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.

He did what he had to for political reasons.

 I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there. 

And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.

And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.

Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party? 

Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
Click to expand...



1. Your noting of Trump's low approval rating among blacks proves nothing.

2. I did not claim that Nixon RAN as on a Civil RIghts platform, I pointed out correctly that he GOVERNED on a civil rights platform. Which is more important. 

3. THe idea that affirmative action drove the flight from the dems is disproved by the link I posted that looked into voting patterns. 

4. Sure Busing sucked. That's why Nixon was against it. BUt it was the law of the land so he enforced it. 


5. There was no "southern strategy". That is a lie of the LEft.

6. RE: higher income, higher education was in reference to the process of teh SOuth flipping. As I clearly explained. THat alone disproves the Left's view of the event. Are you prepared to address it?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".
> 
> The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.
> 
> You finally made a real point.
> 
> I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.
> 
> ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy?  there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.
> 
> With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests.  Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?
> 
> 
> The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.
Click to expand...

We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause.  All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.
> 
> You finally made a real point.
> 
> I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.
> 
> ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy?  there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.
> 
> With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests.  Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?
> 
> 
> The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause.  All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".
Click to expand...


Lots of Third World nations believed that bs in the 70. Just get a "large capital infusion" and invest in industry and BOOM, become industrialized.


THey ended up with heavy loans and shit to show for it. 


Granted in your scenario, the capital was not loans, but a direct payment.

But your assumption that industrialization is easy, is nonsense disproved by history.

THOUGH, your belief system is in keeping with someone from the Third World, provided they have learned nothing from the last 50 years.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.


Why don't you be honest for once in your life?  The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students.  They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice.  Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence.  Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> The capital laws of demand and supply don't stop for right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called you on your normal bullshit of posting incoherent garbage.
> 
> You finally made a real point.
> 
> I addressed it seriously, honestly and even respectfully.
> 
> ANd you run away from serious discussion back into incoherent garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> Barring an unlikely return to seriousness on your part, my rebuttal of your point on "eminent domain" stands as the Final Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.
> 
> 
> THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.
> 
> 
> The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the laws of demand and supply stop for right wing fantasy?  there are no traffic controls under, laissez-fair.
> 
> With that influx in capital, the South would have been advancing their commercial interests.  Some Southern railroads were quite progressive in this area, according to a video on YouTube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU accuse me of engaging in fantasy because I am skeptical that a agricultural region can quickly and easily transform into an industrial region?
> 
> 
> The South was an agricultural region. The upper class was based on agricultural exports. They feared that a loss of forced labor and a trade policy based on the interests of the industrial north would lead to them and the SOuth being impoverished and marginalized for generations.
> 
> Which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Your belief that it would have been easy for them to industrialize is disproved by history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were in the beginning of an Industrial Revolution; only the right wing prefers special pleading for their Cause.  All the South needed, was a "large capital infusion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of Third World nations believed that bs in the 70. Just get a "large capital infusion" and invest in industry and BOOM, become industrialized.
> 
> 
> THey ended up with heavy loans and shit to show for it.
> 
> 
> Granted in your scenario, the capital was not loans, but a direct payment.
> 
> But your assumption that industrialization is easy, is nonsense disproved by history.
> 
> THOUGH, your belief system is in keeping with someone from the Third World, provided they have learned nothing from the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

Mexico is our third largest trading partner; we infuse Mexico with capital, all the time.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
Click to expand...


Causation proves causation though.

Nixon had t support civil rights. It was the law.

He was a racist himself. Fact.

Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.

Nobody is making things up about Nixon.

Except you.


----------



## IM2

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
Click to expand...


Causation proves causation though.

Nixon had to support civil rights. It was the law.

He was a racist himself. Fact.

Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.

Nobody is making things up about Nixon.

Except you.


----------



## Leweman

No


----------



## jasonnfree

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was Lee Atwater and that interview is very telling. I've seen it before.
> 
> There s no debate as to what he did to turn the south republican really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
Click to expand...



And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be honest for once in your life?  The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students.  They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice.  Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence.  Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Do you really understand what social engineering is?


----------



## IM2

jasonnfree said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
Click to expand...


And that same republican president had the wetback boats.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be honest for once in your life?  The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students.  They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice.  Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence.  Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.
Click to expand...


Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?

. This was in the 1960's, you fool. There were about 60 of us that were sent to a school that had a student body of over 2000.
No black people were attacking white people during that era or In that geographical area.

 In fact, we were afraid of being bused into that predominately white school for fear of lynchings, or other white related "group activities" that were popular during the 50's and 60's.

Our parents all told us before being sent there, "be careful, stay to youself and remember Enmitt Till"

The school that I was bused into, had previously only had a few black students who were transferred out by their parents to protect them.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you be honest for once in your life?  The reason white parents were furious over blacks being bused to white schools is because they got tired of their children being physically attacked by violent black students.  They started enrolling their kids in private schools to protect them, leaving the public schools dominated by unruly and disruptive black students (who had no interest in an education) and low income white students who had no choice.  Many of them opted to drop out of school to avoid the violence.  Politicians who did not support busing started winning all the elections and the liberal social engineers backed off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Do you really understand what social engineering is?
Click to expand...


Probably not.


----------



## katsteve2012

jasonnfree said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no debate about it, because it is a matter of blind faith with lefties and you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
Click to expand...



The brown versus brown legislation was PASSED in 1954 making school segregation unlawful. The troops were actually SENT in 1957. 

Furthermore, I don't disagree. If you read the entire thread, I have stated a few times that SOUTHERN  Democrats AND  Republicans were not much diffrrent in their ideology regarding civil rights. George Wallace was another Southern Democrat who resisted as well. Thanks for bringing this up.


----------



## jasonnfree

katsteve2012 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The brown versus brown legislation was PASSED in 1954 making school segregation unlawful. The troops were actually SENT in 1957.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't disagree. If you read the entire thread, I have stated a few times that SOUTHERN  Democrats AND  Republicans were not much diffrrent in their ideology regarding civil rights. George Wallace was another Southern Democrat who resisted as well. Thanks for bringing this up.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that 1957 correction.  I just remembered watching it on t.v. not really remembering what year it was.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?


I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading.  In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C.  Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped.  Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed.  They notified the media and it was covered on tv.  Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis).  Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors.  Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it.  It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Causation proves causation though.
> 
> Nixon had t support civil rights. It was the law.
> 
> He was a racist himself. Fact.
> 
> Like I said cornel I'm not going to argue with you about this, things happened the way I said they did. I was here and saw it.
> 
> Nobody is making things up about Nixon.
> 
> Except you.
Click to expand...



Nixon did far more than just follow the letter of the law on Civil Rights.

And as has been demonstrated, Presidents can certainly drag their feet and stonewall, and play various games to be ineffective in enforcing the law.

Yes, people ARE making up shit about Nixon.


"
*Civil rights*
The Nixon presidency witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South.[186] Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationist Wallace and liberal Democrats, whose support of integration was alienating some Southern whites.[187] Hopeful of doing well in the South in 1972, he sought to dispose of desegregation as a political issue before then. Soon after his inauguration, he appointed Vice President Agnew to lead a task force, which worked with local leaders—both white and black—to determine how to integrate local schools. Agnew had little interest in the work, and most of it was done by Labor Secretary George Shultz. Federal aid was available, and a meeting with President Nixon was a possible reward for compliant committees. By September 1970, less than ten percent of black children were attending segregated schools. By 1971, however, tensions over desegregation surfaced in Northern cities, with angry protests over the busing of children to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve racial balance. Nixon opposed busing personally but enforced court orders requiring its use.[188]

In addition to desegregating public schools, Nixon implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.[189] He also endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment after it passed both houses of Congress in 1972 and went to the states for ratification.[190] Nixon had campaigned as an ERA supporter in 1968, though feminists criticized him for doing little to help the ERA or their cause after his election. Nevertheless, he appointed more women to administration positions than Lyndon Johnson had"


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly Corell. Since this is not 1976, can you please explain what happened to the south since Jimmy Carter? Al Gore could not win his home state of Tennessee in 2000 for Christ sakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read this part?
> 
> 
> "The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> If the flip was from racism, you would expect the new republican voters to be poorer and less educated.
> 
> Instead it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> What political affiliation did your parents have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same republican president had the wetback boats.
Click to expand...



Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading.  In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C.  Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped.  Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
> The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed.  They notified the media and it was covered on tv.  Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis).  Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors.  Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
> Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
> Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it.  It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.
Click to expand...



Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.

You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.

The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.

I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim". 

What a joke.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading.  In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C.  Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped.  Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
> The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed.  They notified the media and it was covered on tv.  Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis).  Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors.  Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
> Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
> Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it.  It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.
> 
> You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.
> 
> The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.
> 
> I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim".
> 
> What a joke.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, I lived in the D.C. metro area for 17 years.  Don't talk to me about personal experience.  I told you I graduated high school BEFORE they started busing in the savages from D.C.  Me, not being in school at the time, doesn't mean it didn't happen, asshole.  That's your diversion so you don't have to address the issue of black on white violence.  I lived in a war zone, you lived in sunny California and still think you had it so rough, you poor little victim.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> From that right wing rag, The New York Times.
> 
> The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
> 
> 
> "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 — 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 “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”
> 
> It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” 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 — and here’s the surprise — 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. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I  lived it cornel. I saw what happened. You don't have to be poor and uneducated to be racist.. The change had everything to do with race. I'm not going to argue with you about this. That's what happened. I don't care if you don't agree with it. And my parents or my political affiliation doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same republican president had the wetback boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.


----------



## Papageorgio

Cossack1483 said:


> Negros have exsisted responsiblity free since the war for Southern Independence.  Although we admit they all would be canibals without White ingenuity ; they owe Whites their very being,  Just leave us alone ; all we ask.  Become self suffiecient , get your own gubmint.



That's a load of crap, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Unkotare

Cossack1483 said:


> ...since the war for Southern Independence.  ....





You mean the American Civil War?


----------



## Unkotare

I


danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time the issue of race is shown to be something that created anything we get those who want to talk about it was not race but economics. That's crap. The southern dixiecrats left the democratic party coincidently after integration was made law. Now that's a fact. To argue this is silly considering that we live in 2017 and the south is  majority republican today. And if you don' t think race played factor in this, think again. It's just that simple. I have tried staying out of this discussion, but I was  a kid in the  60's. My parents were highly politically involved. I watched how things went down. l have seen how whites have reacted ever since the civil rights act was passed and the fact is the parties changed because of race and the southern democrats changed because of racism.
> 
> Now I'm sure the racist south lost money because they had to hire blacks and pay us equally to whites, so if that's economics then that's the reason .But when you talk about it like race was not the overriding factor but economics was, I don't give a damn what kind professor you call  yourself, you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were young and you saw the south flip as the dems moved away from supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Correlation does not prove causation.
> 
> Nixon was a strong supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> THe idea that he pandered to racist is lies made up by people who hated him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same republican president had the wetback boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.
Click to expand...





  kids who find one phrase, misunderstand it, and then repeat it endlessly because they think it makes them look brilliant are funny.


----------



## danielpalos

Unkotare said:


> I
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same republican president had the wetback boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids who find one phrase, misunderstand it, and then repeat it endlessly because they think it makes them look brilliant are funny.
Click to expand...

lol.  those right wingers and their, "immigration clause".


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you read and THINK for once instead of reading a few words and start foaming at the mouth like some canine with rabies?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about reality, you're talking about reading.  In 1971, students in the high school in Md. I had graduated from a couple years before, were being attacked on a daily basis by blacks who had been bused in from D.C.  Several of my friends had younger siblings in that high school, and had to escort them to and from school to keep them from being jumped.  Most of the victims were girls, and it was rarely one on one.
> The white students finally organized a sit-in outside the school and refused to go in until the issue of violence was addressed.  They notified the media and it was covered on tv.  Liberals, of course, tried to pretend it wasn't happening, called the white students racists, and we heard the same crap from them we hear now (the same crap you spew out here on a daily basis).  Blacks were not the poor innocent victims like you pretend to be, they were the aggressors.  Most of them were several years older than their white counterparts due to failing several grades (no surprise there).
> Teachers were unable to teach, they spent most of their time breaking up fights (which usually consisted of one white kid being attacked by several blacks).
> Don't talk to me about your victimhood, I've been hearing it my whole life and I've never seen it.  It's always been the other way around, and statistics bear that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is what one experiences first hand, fool.
> 
> You can spin it anyway that you choose based on what you think, which is not my problem, it's yours.
> 
> The funny thing with you is that it's always "what you heard" or "what someone told you", versus what you actually experienced.
> 
> I think most of the trash that you post is either your imagination or some second hand story told in the third person where "someone that knows someone that knows you" was a "victim".
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, I lived in the D.C. metro area for 17 years.  Don't talk to me about personal experience.  I told you I graduated high school BEFORE they started busing in the savages from D.C.  Me, not being in school at the time, doesn't mean it didn't happen, asshole.  That's your diversion so you don't have to address the issue of black on white violence.  I lived in a war zone, you lived in sunny California and still think you had it so rough, you poor little victim.
Click to expand...


What it means dipstick, is that YOU not attending school where I did at that time does not make you right about what I experienced. 

I did not dismiss  your "third person" rant as untrue. I never said that black kids did not attack white kids..i wasn't there, just like you weren't present in my time. 

Is that to difficult a reality to get through your thick head?

Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.


And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
Click to expand...


Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.

Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.

Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.

So grow up white boy.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look *white boy* that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of *punk ass racist white boys* like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are *white boy*. And if you *white boys* had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what *your white ass* is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up *white boy*.
Click to expand...

6 racial slurs in one post.  Thank you for showing us who the real racist is here.  Now you can go back to lamenting over how repressed you are (after 150 years of freedom and over 50 years of coddling by our government).  You're dismissed.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
Click to expand...








Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
Click to expand...




S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
Click to expand...



Lol! Now you have really hit rock bottom with your stupidity. Where have I claimed to be repressed?

By the way, how many times did you get your fragile, little ass kicked in the "war zone" that you claim to be from?


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look *white boy* that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of *punk ass racist white boys* like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are *white boy*. And if you *white boys* had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what *your white ass* is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up *white boy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 racial slurs in one post.  Thank you for showing us who the real racist is here.  Now you can go back to lamenting over how repressed you are (after 150 years of freedom and over 50 years of coddling by our government).  You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


Like I said you have been here posting up  al kinds of racism and you want to talk about racist when no racial slurs have actually been used White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever. But now  since whites want to look for reasons to feel persecuted you do this. But see SJ this thread is an example of your racism. So no one cares about you whining. Or that of anyone else. This is an example of the psychosis whites like you have. You have  posted up 44 pages of actual racism and cry about what you think some racial slurs are. I must laugh at this idiocy.

Dismiss your momma., you've just got back what your punk ass has been dishing out.


----------



## IM2

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
Click to expand...


That would be you. We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
Click to expand...



And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.
Click to expand...




I've been telling racists like him and YOU to F-themselves for ages before you ever got here, newbie.


----------



## IM2

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.


----------



## IM2

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling racists like him and YOU to F-themselves for ages before you ever got here, newbie.
Click to expand...


No you haven't. Not if you think I am a racist.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. ...it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, most of you racists - white, black, or whatever - feel so justified in your racism that you tout it as just "realism." You're all wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling racists like him and YOU to F-themselves for ages before you ever got here, newbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. Not if you think I am a racist.
Click to expand...






Everyone can read your posts for themselves and make that call. You do not want to put it to a poll.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look *white boy* that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of *punk ass racist white boys* like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are *white boy*. And if you *white boys* had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what *your white ass* is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up *white boy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 racial slurs in one post.  Thank you for showing us who the real racist is here.  Now you can go back to lamenting over how repressed you are (after 150 years of freedom and over 50 years of coddling by our government).  You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever. ....
Click to expand...




Ah~~~~~~~you're saying that a racial term used among members of a 'race' is not a slur when used about members of that 'race ' by someone of another 'race'? You ready to live with that standard?


----------



## IM2

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling racists like him and YOU to F-themselves for ages before you ever got here, newbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. Not if you think I am a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can read your posts for themselves and make that call. You do not want to put it to a poll.
Click to expand...


Most everyone here is a white racist.  Of course they will think that I'm a racist for pointing out what whites have done like you do while ignoring 3,000 threads filled with white racist drivel.

I've said nothing racist. That's a fact.

Now seriously do yu really know what racism is?.


----------



## IM2

Unkotare said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look *white boy* that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of *punk ass racist white boys* like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are *white boy*. And if you *white boys* had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what *your white ass* is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up *white boy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 racial slurs in one post.  Thank you for showing us who the real racist is here.  Now you can go back to lamenting over how repressed you are (after 150 years of freedom and over 50 years of coddling by our government).  You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah~~~~~~~you're saying that a racial term used among members of a 'race' is not a slur when used about members of that 'race ' by someone of another 'race'? You ready to live with that standard?
Click to expand...


Yep especially when that term was made up by the people of that race to describe themselves and not made up by another race to use in describing that race.

You see Unkotare this is just how ignorant you are relative to this subject. You live for the false equivalence like most of these white idiots here.


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....you can't see it. That's how fucked up you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling racists like him and YOU to F-themselves for ages before you ever got here, newbie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you haven't. Not if you think I am a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone can read your posts for themselves and make that call. You do not want to put it to a poll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most everyone here is a white racist.  ...
> 
> I've said nothing racist. That's a fact.
> 
> is?.
Click to expand...



 As I was saying....


----------



## Unkotare

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look *white boy* that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of *punk ass racist white boys* like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are *white boy*. And if you *white boys* had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what *your white ass* is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up *white boy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 6 racial slurs in one post.  Thank you for showing us who the real racist is here.  Now you can go back to lamenting over how repressed you are (after 150 years of freedom and over 50 years of coddling by our government).  You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah~~~~~~~you're saying that a racial term used among members of a 'race' is not a slur when used about members of that 'race ' by someone of another 'race'? You ready to live with that standard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep ......
Click to expand...





Great, so you will never get offended if someone-anyone- calls you the N-word?


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Now you have really hit rock bottom with your stupidity. Where have I claimed to be repressed?
> 
> By the way, how many times did you get your fragile, little ass kicked in the "war zone" that you claim to be from?
Click to expand...

How many times did you get YOUR ass kicked in sunny California, snowflake?


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> Like I said you have been here posting up al kinds of racism and you want to talk about racist when no racial slurs have actually been used White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever.


Ok, so you won't mind if I call you ni**er in response?


IM2 said:


> You have posted up 44 pages of actual racism and cry about what you think some racial slurs are.


I've posted the truth, you just choose to see it as racism so you don't have to face it.  That one word has been your excuse for everything, hasn't it?


IM2 said:


> Dismiss your momma., you've just got back what your punk ass has been dishing out.


No, what I've gotten back is a lot of bullshit rationalization for why (after 150 years of freedom) you still can't stand on your own two feet without the white man propping you up.


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
Click to expand...


"People like you." What do you mean by that?


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> 
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol @ "Sunny California" there are some white supremacist rural areas in this state that you would be a perfect fit for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And where would that be, you poor repressed black man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Now you have really hit rock bottom with your stupidity. Where have I claimed to be repressed?
> 
> By the way, how many times did you get your fragile, little ass kicked in the "war zone" that you claim to be from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times did you get YOUR ass kicked in sunny California, snowflake?
Click to expand...


Never. I went to school, kept to myself  and went home. Outside of that, participated in sports and made the best of a bad situation.

My guess is that you got your hostile, little dumb ass kicked regularly, which figures.

You obviously have not grown up much since then.


By the way, taking into account your  abject illiteracy, here is some background information on the term "snowflake".


"Referring to someone, usually the Alt-Right, Yiannopoulos, And Nazi Sympathizers (A.K.A. ARYANS), whose immense white fragility causes a meltdown when confronted with the most minute deviation from orthodox White Supremacy. They often cry bloody murder when expected to give the most modest expression of basichuman decency.

This is all a continuation of how Snowflake historically refers to people who are against the abolition of slavery."


----------



## S.J.

katsteve2012 said:


> Never. I went to school, kept to myself and went home. Outside of that, participated in sports and made the best of a bad situation.


More like:
Always.  I went to school, whined about racism, and ran all the way to the bus stop.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said you have been here posting up al kinds of racism and you want to talk about racist when no racial slurs have actually been used White boy is not a racial slur, it is a term white men have used on themselves forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you won't mind if I call you ni**er in response?
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have posted up 44 pages of actual racism and cry about what you think some racial slurs are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've posted the truth, you just choose to see it as racism so you don't have to face it.  That one word has been your excuse for everything, hasn't it?
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dismiss your momma., you've just got back what your punk ass has been dishing out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I've gotten back is a lot of bullshit rationalization for why (after 150 years of freedom) you still can't stand on your own two feet without the white man propping you up.
Click to expand...


No, you posted up racist crap.  Now 47 pages of it. The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because  only whites fought in the civil war claiming that whites and only whites died to free blacks. That lie ignores the history of many slaves dying while running away, in work stoppages or in attempts to up rise on plantations. They ALL died fighting for freedom.

So what I did was tell you the truth. And you can't take the real cold hard truth.


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look white boy that's enough. You punks have done us for at least 240 years.  And your bitch ass is representative of how fucked up in the mind whites like you are. You start a dumb ass thread about blacks paying whites reparations when blacks have done no damage to whites and you base your claim on a civil war where blacks fought and died. You fill the internet full of racism then try telling someone that racism is a thing of the past. So now you try making this smart ass comment when in fact we have been oppressed and it still continues because of the existence of punk ass racist white boys like you.
> 
> Enough is enough. No we don't owe whites reparations. Whites do we us reparations. That is a fact that is documented by the actions of whites that are logged in our history books. It is fact that is recorded in decisions made by the supreme court. It is fact written in your constitution.
> 
> Now that's the ways things are white boy. And if you white boys had not acted as you did, then we would not be here today. You punks always want lecture about consequences as result of bad decisions, well what your white ass is looking at are the consequences you must face for the consistent poor decision you have made about other human beings based on race.
> 
> So grow up white boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...


What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.


Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.


IM2 said:


> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war


You don't read so well.  I asked a question.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. *This I show stupid some white people are.* No racial reference was mentioned here but you are trying to create racism so you can cry about it.


Anybody else see the irony of this post?  "Don't try making this racist".  Then, in the next sentence, makes a racist remark.  Who would take this asshole seriously?


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read so well.  I asked a question.
Click to expand...


So why are we on age 47? And even if what you say is true that's 24 pages of racist drivel.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. *This I show stupid some white people are.* No racial reference was mentioned here but you are trying to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody else see the irony of this post?  "Don't try making this racist".  Then, in the next sentence, makes a racist remark.  Who would take this asshole seriously?
Click to expand...


This is a vivid illustration to how stupid some white people are on this matter. That is not a racist comment because it tells anyone with one brain cell left in their head that the person is not referring to whites as a entire race. But we'll see the word white and try pretending that it means the same thing and has the  same history as the n word because we want to play victim in order to try diffusing the reality of non white experiences with continuing white racism.

You do know what diffusing means don't you?


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read so well.  I asked a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So why are we on age 47?* And even if what you say is true that's 24 pages of racist drivel.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you see "age 47" (I assume you mean "page 47), I see page 24.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. *This I show stupid some white people are.* No racial reference was mentioned here but you are trying to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody else see the irony of this post?  "Don't try making this racist".  Then, in the next sentence, makes a racist remark.  Who would take this asshole seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a vivid illustration to how stupid some white people are on this matter. *That is not a racist comment* because it tells anyone with one brain cell left in their head that the person is not referring to whites as a entire race. But we'll see the word white and try pretending that it means the same thing and has the  same history as the n word because we want to play victim in order to try diffusing the reality of non white experiences with continuing white racism.
> 
> You do know what diffusing means don't you?
Click to expand...

Nice try, racist MF but everyone recognizes your racism.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read so well.  I asked a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So why are we on age 47?* And even if what you say is true that's 24 pages of racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you see "age 47" (I assume you mean "page 47), I see page 24.
Click to expand...


*Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites? *
Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by S.J., Jun 6, 2013.

Page 47 of 47


----------



## Moonglow

*Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?*

I really don't need any powdered Kool-Aide..


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. *This I show stupid some white people are.* No racial reference was mentioned here but you are trying to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody else see the irony of this post?  "Don't try making this racist".  Then, in the next sentence, makes a racist remark.  Who would take this asshole seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a vivid illustration to how stupid some white people are on this matter. *That is not a racist comment* because it tells anyone with one brain cell left in their head that the person is not referring to whites as a entire race. But we'll see the word white and try pretending that it means the same thing and has the  same history as the n word because we want to play victim in order to try diffusing the reality of non white experiences with continuing white racism.
> 
> You do know what diffusing means don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try, racist MF but everyone recognizes your racism.
Click to expand...


Nah. What's being done is a bunch of racists whining about being shown the truth. The comment was not racist.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read so well.  I asked a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So why are we on age 47?* And even if what you say is true that's 24 pages of racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you see "age 47" (I assume you mean "page 47), I see page 24.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites? *
> Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by S.J., Jun 6, 2013.
> 
> Page 47 of 47
Click to expand...

WTF are you trying to say there, boy?  You drunk or something?  Too much Ripple?


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> What's being done is a bunch of racists whining about being shown the truth.


Finally we agree.  I showed you the truth and you couldn't handle it so you are whining about racism (AGAIN).


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's being done is a bunch of racists whining about being shown the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we agree.  I showed you the truth and you couldn't handle it so you are whining about racism (AGAIN).
Click to expand...


I am stating fact that you are a racist. YOU are the one crying about a racism you made up because you can't take the truth.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you posted up racist crap. Now 47 pages of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the thread is only 24 pages long.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first was your post about how whites should get reparations because only whites fought in the civil war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't read so well.  I asked a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So why are we on age 47?* And even if what you say is true that's 24 pages of racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you see "age 47" (I assume you mean "page 47), I see page 24.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites? *
> Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by S.J., Jun 6, 2013.
> 
> Page 47 of 47
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you trying to say there, boy?  You drunk or something?  Too much Ripple?
Click to expand...


Stay off the moonshine hillbilly. Maybe you can go catch some fish in the cement pond.


----------



## S.J.

IM2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's being done is a bunch of racists whining about being shown the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we agree.  I showed you the truth and you couldn't handle it so you are whining about racism (AGAIN).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am stating fact that you are a racist. YOU are the one crying about a racism you made up because you can't take the truth.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm either dealing with a teenager or a very intellectually limited (and intoxicated) adult.  Either way, this is getting silly and I'm tired of humiliating you, so goodnight, Hambone.


----------



## IM2

S.J. said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's being done is a bunch of racists whining about being shown the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally we agree.  I showed you the truth and you couldn't handle it so you are whining about racism (AGAIN).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am stating fact that you are a racist. YOU are the one crying about a racism you made up because you can't take the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I'm either dealing with a teenager or a very intellectually limited (and intoxicated) adult.  Either way, this is getting silly and I'm tired of humiliating you, so goodnight, Hambone.
Click to expand...


You've been taken to the woodshed boy. Get used to it.


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless racist vs brainless racist ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
Click to expand...


No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people. 

Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."


----------



## katsteve2012

S.J. said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never. I went to school, kept to myself and went home. Outside of that, participated in sports and made the best of a bad situation.
> 
> 
> 
> More like:
> Always.  I went to school, whined about racism, and ran all the way to the bus stop.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point. Your ignorance is further illustrated with every one syllable word that you type.


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....We have here in this thread 44 pages of pure racism by this white dude and ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
Click to expand...


This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.

I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
Click to expand...


Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up. 

You ought to become a comedian.


----------



## Foxfyre

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And plenty of pure racism from YOU as well, hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
Click to expand...


If you said how some PEOPLE are, it would not be racist.  But once you refer to WHITE PEOPLE it becomes racist just as it would if you had said how some BLACK PEOPLE are.

Saying that black people do/do not deserve reparations because. . .might be wrong but it is not racist.  Saying that black people demand reparations because they have been victimized might be wrong, but it is not racist.  Saying that politicians push reparations to curry the black vote might or might not be wrong, but it is not racist.

Stating the circumstances regarding race is rarely going to be racist in fact, but there are times it could be the intent.  But to state that the circumstances exist because the people involved are black or white or whatever is racist or perilously close.  For example, to say that a disproportionate number of black people are poor is not a racist statement UNLESS the implication is that they are poor only because they are black..


----------



## Correll

Unkotare said:


> I
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Earlier this week, the Republican National Committee hired three new staffers to assist with African American outreach. They will have their work cut out for them. Donald Trump’s average level of black support from four recent national polls is 2 percent, and a July NBC/_Wall Street Journal_battleground poll showed Trump getting exactly 0 percent support among African American voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And the candidate is not helping his own cause. He has demonstrated a steady penchant for resurrecting racially divisive campaign tactics of the past, tactics that simultaneously ignored black voters and used race as a wedge to attract disgruntled white voters in the South.
> 
> acknowledged the party’s “Southern Strategy” and directly apologized: “I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” *In 2010, Michael Steele—the first black head of the RNC—admitted in a talk with students at DePaul University that Republicans had given minorities little reason to vote for them: “For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
> 
> 
> *
> Nixon did NOT rum his campaign on a civil rights platform.
> 
> His platform message was "restoration of law and order."
> You are attempting  to make it appear otherwise.
> 
> The fact is that "wedge" issues such as the introduction of affirmative action and school desegregation drove the flight to the Republican party.
> 
> Nixon took office on the heels of some of the worst race riots in history. He had NO CHOICE except to do something to change the climate or more anarchy in the streets would have negatively impacted the perception of his administration.
> 
> But he was absolutely NOT a known primarily for being a  supporter and advocate for civil rights.
> 
> He did what he had to for political reasons.
> 
> I lived it because I PERSONALLY was bused to a predominately white secondary school in California in the 60's with approximately 60 or so other black students, and I saw and ecperienced the hostility first hand  of objectionable "upper middle class" white people ranging from apathetic school administrators who were aghast at the presence of newly arrived black students, to parents who were furious over us even being there.
> 
> And the worst of it was that we all HATED being there as well.
> 
> And  that was in so called "liberal" California. Resistance and hostility was much more obvious in Southern states.
> 
> Like it or not, there WAS a southern strategy. Then and now. Furthermore, you actually believe that a more affluent, more educated southern voter is the backbone of todays Republican party?
> 
> Then explain why the majority of rural, lower income white SOUTHERN voters who in the past were Democrats have over time redirected  their loyaly to the Republican party...(except for an anomaly in 1976 when Carter was elected?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And  yet it was a republican president, Ike, who sent the troops into Little Rock to enforce integration of schools in 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that same republican president had the wetback boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing immigration law is a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforcing our Commerce Clause, is even better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids who find one phrase, misunderstand it, and then repeat it endlessly because they think it makes them look brilliant are funny.
Click to expand...


Funny sad, not funny ha ha.


----------



## IM2

Foxfyre said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said how some PEOPLE are, it would not be racist.  But once you refer to WHITE PEOPLE it becomes racist just as it would if you had said how some BLACK PEOPLE are.
> 
> Saying that black people do/do not deserve reparations because. . .might be wrong but it is not racist.  Saying that black people demand reparations because they have been victimized might be wrong, but it is not racist.  Saying that politicians push reparations to curry the black vote might or might not be wrong, but it is not racist.
> 
> Stating the circumstances regarding race is rarely going to be racist in fact, but there are times it could be the intent.  But to state that the circumstances exist because the people involved are black or white or whatever is racist or perilously close.  For example, to say that a disproportionate number of black people are poor is not a racist statement UNLESS the implication is that they are poor only because they are black..
Click to expand...


Don't lecture me about what is and is not racist. What I said was not racist.  To say that some whites are racist is not a racist comment. To say that whites are racist is. Some whites means that the while race of whites are not being described or referred to in such a manner. Therefore to say some whites like you is not a racist comment. That is is not even really debatable. Only in places like this where white racists come to troll is where white racists can call anyone using the word white a racist and the other idiots will jump in and agree,


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not seen any racism from me. Talking about what whites have done and keep doing is not racist dumb ass.  People like you don't seem to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
Click to expand...


No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
Click to expand...


What do you want in reparations?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law means being able to apply for unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; and let, "Jim Crow-ers", "eat crow".


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
Click to expand...


No, you don't get to ask all the questions.

Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
Click to expand...

Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
Click to expand...


Dumb question.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
Click to expand...

Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.


----------



## Foxfyre

IM2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People like you." What do you mean by that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said how some PEOPLE are, it would not be racist.  But once you refer to WHITE PEOPLE it becomes racist just as it would if you had said how some BLACK PEOPLE are.
> 
> Saying that black people do/do not deserve reparations because. . .might be wrong but it is not racist.  Saying that black people demand reparations because they have been victimized might be wrong, but it is not racist.  Saying that politicians push reparations to curry the black vote might or might not be wrong, but it is not racist.
> 
> Stating the circumstances regarding race is rarely going to be racist in fact, but there are times it could be the intent.  But to state that the circumstances exist because the people involved are black or white or whatever is racist or perilously close.  For example, to say that a disproportionate number of black people are poor is not a racist statement UNLESS the implication is that they are poor only because they are black..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me about what is and is not racist. What I said was not racist.  To say that some whites are racist is not a racist comment. To say that whites are racist is. Some whites means that the while race of whites are not being described or referred to in such a manner. Therefore to say some whites like you is not a racist comment. That is is not even really debatable. Only in places like this where white racists come to troll is where white racists can call anyone using the word white a racist and the other idiots will jump in and agree,
Click to expand...


I am not lecturing.  I am expressing my opinion just as you are.  If I am lecturing then so are you.

My opinion is that there are racists among white people, black people, brown people, Asian people etc. etc. etc.  That is the reality.  But if you single out white people as the group where racism is found--even if you don't intend to tar all white people with that brush--then you are making a racist observation.  It is no different than my saying some black people refuse to help themselves--an accurate statement--but leaving the impression that it is because they are black that the situation exists or that only black people are subject to that situation.  That would be a racist observation.

So yes some people are racist.  It is not because they are white or black or anything else.  Some people are racist.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
Click to expand...


Natives get reparations paid to them every year. They get them for things that happened when none of your white asses were alive. YOU pay for them annually. Yet when blacks talk about what we are rightful owed, we get dumb shit.


----------



## IM2

Foxfyre said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? And don't try making this racist. This I show stupid some white people are. No racial reference was mentioned  here but you are trying  to create racism so you can cry about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said how some PEOPLE are, it would not be racist.  But once you refer to WHITE PEOPLE it becomes racist just as it would if you had said how some BLACK PEOPLE are.
> 
> Saying that black people do/do not deserve reparations because. . .might be wrong but it is not racist.  Saying that black people demand reparations because they have been victimized might be wrong, but it is not racist.  Saying that politicians push reparations to curry the black vote might or might not be wrong, but it is not racist.
> 
> Stating the circumstances regarding race is rarely going to be racist in fact, but there are times it could be the intent.  But to state that the circumstances exist because the people involved are black or white or whatever is racist or perilously close.  For example, to say that a disproportionate number of black people are poor is not a racist statement UNLESS the implication is that they are poor only because they are black..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me about what is and is not racist. What I said was not racist.  To say that some whites are racist is not a racist comment. To say that whites are racist is. Some whites means that the while race of whites are not being described or referred to in such a manner. Therefore to say some whites like you is not a racist comment. That is is not even really debatable. Only in places like this where white racists come to troll is where white racists can call anyone using the word white a racist and the other idiots will jump in and agree,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not lecturing.  I am expressing my opinion just as you are.  If I am lecturing then so are you.
> 
> My opinion is that there are racists among white people, black people, brown people, Asian people etc. etc. etc.  That is the reality.  But if you single out white people as the group where racism is found--even if you don't intend to tar all white people with that brush--then you are making a racist observation.  It is no different than my saying some black people refuse to help themselves--an accurate statement--but leaving the impression that it is because they are black that the situation exists or that only black people are subject to that situation.  That would be a racist.
> 
> So yes some people are racist.  It is not because they are white or black or anything else.  Some people are racist.
Click to expand...


You are lecturing. And so am I. Your lecture is not based on reality because you ignore a minimum 240 years of a consistent pattern of behavior then give the response to that behavior the same name. Your argument is based on a  strawman. All people here in America did not codify their racism into law. Whites did.


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yoo are one funny person, I don't need to get paid by anyone, nor will I pay anyone for their racial make up.
> 
> You ought to become a comedian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
Click to expand...


I wasn't asking you, I was asking Daniel to clarify his point. 

What would you want to see in reparations?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
Click to expand...


Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.


----------



## Foxfyre

IM2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I am asking a question, and you just said, (in a bad sentence structure) how some "white" people are. If you weren't stirring up racism, you would never have mentioned skin color, but you seem obsessed with talking about "white" people.
> 
> Your bigotry shows through and it is quite obvious, even to us "stupid white people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows just how much whites like you try inventing racism by blacks. This is a section called race and racism. This thread is called should back spay  Reparations to whites.  As long as you whites got to run off at the mouth about black people and what you won't pay and shit, there was nothing wrnog. But when we start talking about whites, then suddenly you get butthurt and start whining about racism.
> 
> I said how some white people are. That is not racist. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said how some PEOPLE are, it would not be racist.  But once you refer to WHITE PEOPLE it becomes racist just as it would if you had said how some BLACK PEOPLE are.
> 
> Saying that black people do/do not deserve reparations because. . .might be wrong but it is not racist.  Saying that black people demand reparations because they have been victimized might be wrong, but it is not racist.  Saying that politicians push reparations to curry the black vote might or might not be wrong, but it is not racist.
> 
> Stating the circumstances regarding race is rarely going to be racist in fact, but there are times it could be the intent.  But to state that the circumstances exist because the people involved are black or white or whatever is racist or perilously close.  For example, to say that a disproportionate number of black people are poor is not a racist statement UNLESS the implication is that they are poor only because they are black..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't lecture me about what is and is not racist. What I said was not racist.  To say that some whites are racist is not a racist comment. To say that whites are racist is. Some whites means that the while race of whites are not being described or referred to in such a manner. Therefore to say some whites like you is not a racist comment. That is is not even really debatable. Only in places like this where white racists come to troll is where white racists can call anyone using the word white a racist and the other idiots will jump in and agree,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not lecturing.  I am expressing my opinion just as you are.  If I am lecturing then so are you.
> 
> My opinion is that there are racists among white people, black people, brown people, Asian people etc. etc. etc.  That is the reality.  But if you single out white people as the group where racism is found--even if you don't intend to tar all white people with that brush--then you are making a racist observation.  It is no different than my saying some black people refuse to help themselves--an accurate statement--but leaving the impression that it is because they are black that the situation exists or that only black people are subject to that situation.  That would be a racist.
> 
> So yes some people are racist.  It is not because they are white or black or anything else.  Some people are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are lecturing. And so am I. Your lecture is not based on reality because you ignore a minimum 240 years of a consistent pattern of behavior then give the response to that behavior the same name. Your argument is based on a  strawman. All people here in America did not codify their racism into law. Whites did.
Click to expand...


Okay.  So we aren't discussing racism but its just another lefty pulling the racist and victimization card here.  Never mind that it was mostly those 'racist' white people who changed the law, who ended slavery, who ended segregation, and who voted in equal right laws.  We have not had legal racism in his country for more than a half century.

But so be it.  Political 'victims' and opportunists don't want to see things any differently than how they see them any more than others who want to profit from keeping them victims will see it any differently.  So be it.  Have a nice day.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natives get reparations paid to them every year. They get them for things that happened when none of your white asses were alive. YOU pay for them annually. Yet when blacks talk about what we are rightful owed, we get dumb shit.
Click to expand...

Casino revenue on "native lands", from my understanding.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natives get reparations paid to them every year. They get them for things that happened when none of your white asses were alive. YOU pay for them annually. Yet when blacks talk about what we are rightful owed, we get dumb shit.
Click to expand...

Some black guys are rich in our Republic; why not ask for some capital fine (legal) help, whenever it behooves the entire class of Persons in question?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares what you think. The governments of this nation owes black people money. You talking about what you won't pay doesn't change that. So are you going to protest your paying the Native Americans reparations every year?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want in reparations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't asking you, I was asking Daniel to clarify his point.
> 
> What would you want to see in reparations?
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law, simply for the sake of morals and the greater glory of our immortal souls.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
Click to expand...

i worked as a temp in a casino, doing ten key, data entry.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to IM2 it is monetary reparations. So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
Click to expand...

Care to provide a summary.


----------



## danielpalos

In any Case, it is apples and oranges.  Natives "owned the land" and "were free" to begin with, here on US soil.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> 
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i worked as a temp in a casino, doing ten key, data entry.
Click to expand...


That means absolutely nothing, you are a temp at a casino. You realize that federal funding comes in and given to Indians, over and above what a casino brings in.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> In any Case, it is apples and oranges.  Natives "owned the land" and "were free" to begin with, here on US soil.



No it's not, blacks were forced to come to the United States, many lost their lives before ever getting to this country, then they were forced into slavery. Are so saying blacks were not free to begin with?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get to ask all the questions.
> 
> Are you going to protest your paying Native Americans monetary reparations every year?
> 
> 
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
Click to expand...


Ignorance seems to be your MO. 

$20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i worked as a temp in a casino, doing ten key, data entry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means absolutely nothing, you are a temp at a casino. You realize that federal funding comes in and given to Indians, over and above what a casino brings in.
Click to expand...

care to give short summary of your points?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any Case, it is apples and oranges.  Natives "owned the land" and "were free" to begin with, here on US soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, blacks were forced to come to the United States, many lost their lives before ever getting to this country, then they were forced into slavery. Are so saying blacks were not free to begin with?
Click to expand...

I have to quibble.  The Persons who purchased them, could not purchase free Persons on US soil.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should black churches be allowed their own casinos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
Click to expand...

Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.

Seems like lousy management, like usual.

Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
Click to expand...


So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
Click to expand...

i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
Click to expand...


Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.

"Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
Click to expand...

lol. I will remember that next time.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> 
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
Click to expand...


No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.


----------



## IM2

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
Click to expand...


Pretty much like you do every day.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb question.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
Click to expand...

 
The question none of you want to answer is that are you going to protest for the reparations you pay to Indians every year. Not casinos, actual government money paid to Native Americans for things that happened long before any of you white people ere were born.


----------



## Papageorgio

IM2 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> 
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
Click to expand...


What would you like reparations to be?


----------



## Cossack1483

This is a very loose country.   Far from a Nation.  Nations have a common Race , Faith and language.  US is a mongrelized "country"  Don't give the negro $  Give them a nation to destroy and forget them.


FGRN,,,,,,,14 Words


----------



## Unkotare

Cossack1483 said:


> This is a very loose country.   Far from a Nation.  Nations have a common Race , Faith and language.  US is a mongrelized "country"  Don't give the negro $  Give them a nation to destroy and forget them.
> 
> 
> FGRN,,,,,,,14 Words






So many people don't understand anything about America.^^^^^^


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing fantasy is the right wing, for the "gospel Truth" (value) of any given argument.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  That is how some Natives are getting their revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely, interesting that you would think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to provide a summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance seems to be your MO.
> 
> $20 Billion: Total US Support for American Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking to ameliorate my ignorance beats having nothing but the fallacy of red herrings, even twice a day.
> 
> Seems like lousy management, like usual.
> 
> Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question none of you want to answer is that are you going to protest for the reparations you pay to Indians every year. Not casinos, actual government money paid to Native Americans for things that happened long before any of you white people ere were born.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges.  It is not the same thing.  Natives were, for practical purposes, declared, "wards of the State".


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would you like reparations to be?
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are wrong, thanks for admitting it.
> 
> 
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy is the right wing, for the "gospel Truth" (value) of any given argument.
Click to expand...



Not only right wing but you also as you proved in this thread, and now you are trying to deflect and divert. That is what you have and do, it seems your are just like the right wing that you claim to disdain.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> 
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would you like reparations to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...


I'm not asking you, I am asking a person that has been wronged not some silly moron that has nothing but fantasy and cliches.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was under-informed.  i asked for clarification; it must be difficult for the right wing, to have anything more than just, repeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy is the right wing, for the "gospel Truth" (value) of any given argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only right wing but you also as you proved in this thread, and now you are trying to deflect and divert. That is what you have and do, it seems your are just like the right wing that you claim to disdain.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to deflect anything.  I am advocating solutions, not just talk because it is so cheap.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would you like reparations to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you, I am asking a person that has been wronged not some silly moron that has nothing but fantasy and cliches.
Click to expand...

too late; this a "poor boys", "reconnaissance in force".  poor boys have been Wronged, regardless of Color.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal had nothing to do with anything, that is just your silly knee-jerk response when you are looking stupid. You made a claim and stuck by it because you are a temp worker in a casino and you thought that gave you silly expertise.
> 
> "Under-informed" is still wrong, if you didn't know, why in the world would double down on your statement?
> 
> 
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy is the right wing, for the "gospel Truth" (value) of any given argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only right wing but you also as you proved in this thread, and now you are trying to deflect and divert. That is what you have and do, it seems your are just like the right wing that you claim to disdain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to deflect anything.  I am advocating solutions, not just talk because it is so cheap.
Click to expand...


You advocate nothing, I have never seen you post a real solution, just pie in the sky fantasy. When you double down on your misinformed statement to make a point, you deflected as seen in the post after being called out. So now you lie on top of everything else.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would you like reparations to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you, I am asking a person that has been wronged not some silly moron that has nothing but fantasy and cliches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too late; this a "poor boys", "reconnaissance in force".  poor boys have been Wronged, regardless of Color.
Click to expand...


If you say so but we are talking black reparations, not yours.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol. I will remember that next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you won't. Those with agendas will misquote, lie and pretend to be under-informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy is the right wing, for the "gospel Truth" (value) of any given argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only right wing but you also as you proved in this thread, and now you are trying to deflect and divert. That is what you have and do, it seems your are just like the right wing that you claim to disdain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not trying to deflect anything.  I am advocating solutions, not just talk because it is so cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You advocate nothing, I have never seen you post a real solution, just pie in the sky fantasy. When you double down on your misinformed statement to make a point, you deflected as seen in the post after being called out. So now you lie on top of everything else.
Click to expand...

This is my argument, right winger:

Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Where is yours?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much like you do every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you like reparations to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equal protection of the law regarding a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you, I am asking a person that has been wronged not some silly moron that has nothing but fantasy and cliches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too late; this a "poor boys", "reconnaissance in force".  poor boys have been Wronged, regardless of Color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so but we are talking black reparations, not yours.
Click to expand...

Reparations could mean equal protection of the law, in equity.


----------

