Perspective: How It All Happened

[NYcarbineer]

Whether or not the discussion has addressed it, or referred to it, or pointed to it, the point of the OP should be crystal clear to anybody with an 8th grade education. Of course the point is extremely uncomfortable to those accommodating and perpetuating the concept the OP puts out there for us, so they quickly change the subject.

But it is unfortunate that the topic would be of disinterest to any U.S citizen whether or not they agree with the conclusion offered in the OP.

And yet once again, you are incapable of articulating that point in plain English, which it is fair to say indicates that there is, so far, no point to this topic from those who keep bringing it up.

Why?

The point is clear to me. But apparently nobody on the left is smart enough to see it. Or if they do see it, it is too uncomfortable for them to discuss honestly.

So they change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

I understood the point quite well and did not see any reason that it needed to be repeated. I think PC articulated it quite well. Why is it so difficult for you and some others to see that?

Was it too complicated for you?

Would you like for me to put it into simpler terms?

By all means, give us a succinct summary of the attempted points in the OP's latest ramble.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Changing the goal posts once your ass was handed to you???????
I've always said that our politicians have been spending too much, you guys that have your heads up at Obama's ass are always trying to defend the indefensible.

LOL...so typical of the ultra insecure right...faux victory laps...Can't read graphs? And BTW, state and local government workers are STILL government...

Actually, David Stockman, Saxby Chambliss and Charles Krauthammer handed your ass to you BIG time. Read it...own it. It is, in a nutshell how this nation went down the drain...It started with the worst president in my lifetime, Ronbo Reagan, the great American socialist who turned America into a 'welfare queen'. Democrats had been responsibly paying for what they spent, Ronbo said fuck that, we don't need to pay, let of kids and grand-kids pay for what we spend, we'll put it on the Beijing credit card.

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Here is one more graph, and one more quote. Read it...own it.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

It works for you to stop the graph before Obama spent us up to the present debt. You graph would have to be twice as tall to do that.

Nice try.

Yep, the lefties sure do have a prob with it. From throwing Oreo cookies at then RNC Chair Michael Steele, and then who can forget radical left-wing racist lawyer Gloria Allfraud going after Herman Cain when he became a threat?

Why do you want rightwing nuts like Herman Cain to dodge criticism by hiding behind their skin color?

That's the perfect example of the race card.

Why do you left wing nuts hide Obama's complete inadequacy behind the race card?

If you can point to examples where I've attempted to shield Obama from what you think was legitimate criticism by only accusing someone of racism, by all means,

bring them up; we'll discuss them.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet once again, you are incapable of articulating that point in plain English, which it is fair to say indicates that there is, so far, no point to this topic from those who keep bringing it up.

Why?

The point is clear to me. But apparently nobody on the left is smart enough to see it. Or if they do see it, it is too uncomfortable for them to discuss honestly.

So they change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

I understood the point quite well and did not see any reason that it needed to be repeated. I think PC articulated it quite well. Why is it so difficult for you and some others to see that?

Was it too complicated for you?

Would you like for me to put it into simpler terms?

By all means, give us a succinct summary of the attempted points in the OP's latest ramble.

Thank you. It provides excellent references and backup for a fairly simple concept:

1. History is clear that the Democratic Party was the party that supported slavery, that resisted emancipation, that resisted desegregation, and most resisted equal opportunity for all under the law. Those initially pushing for all those things were initially mostly Republicans.

2. When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes, they attempted to rewrite history that it was THEY who cared about black people and other downtrodden groups and it was those eeeeeevil Republicans who kept the black man down.

3. History, however, shows that Republican policies have actually been the most favorable for the black demographic that was advancing more rapidly economically than any other group BEFORE the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that growth has slowed or reversed since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

4. Convincing people that they wouldn't have made it without 'whitey's' help, that they are downtrodden and disadvantaged and impoverished because of "whitey's greed, intolerance, and racism, etc." and they cannot make it without government help is detestable. It is the sure prescrption for encouraging dependency, poverty, sub performance, anti social behavior, and resentment of society as a whole.

It is a concept that encourages people to see it as their right to have others take care of them and provide them with what they want.

5. And the tactic is then employed on a broader scale via use of liberal religious influence, liberal political policies, and a trend to ever expand government as the benefactor and savior of all the poor and downtrodden until we give power and authority even beyond our sovereign government and look to a world government to provide us with all we want.

And when we arrive at that point, the America that the Founders gave us will be no more.

 

[Oddball]

^^^^
Bravo and hubba-hubba!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point is clear to me. But apparently nobody on the left is smart enough to see it. Or if they do see it, it is too uncomfortable for them to discuss honestly.

So they change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

I understood the point quite well and did not see any reason that it needed to be repeated. I think PC articulated it quite well. Why is it so difficult for you and some others to see that?

Was it too complicated for you?

Would you like for me to put it into simpler terms?

By all means, give us a succinct summary of the attempted points in the OP's latest ramble.

Thank you. It provides excellent references and backup for a fairly simple concept:

1. History is clear that the Democratic Party was the party that supported slavery, that resisted emancipation, that resisted desegregation, and most resisted equal opportunity for all under the law. Those initially pushing for all those things were initially mostly Republicans.

2. When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes, they attempted to rewrite history that it was THEY who cared about black people and other downtrodden groups and it was those eeeeeevil Republicans who kept the black man down.

3. History, however, shows that Republican policies have actually been the most favorable for the black demographic that was advancing more rapidly economically than any other group BEFORE the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that growth has slowed or reversed since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

4. Convincing people that they wouldn't have made it without 'whitey's' help, that they are downtrodden and disadvantaged and impoverished because of "whitey's greed, intolerance, and racism, etc." and they cannot make it without government help is detestable. It is the sure prescrption for encouraging dependency, poverty, sub performance, anti social behavior, and resentment of society as a whole.

It is a concept that encourages people to see it as their right to have others take care of them and provide them with what they want.

5. And the tactic is then employed on a broader scale via use of liberal religious influence, liberal political policies, and a trend to ever expand government as the benefactor and savior of all the poor and downtrodden until we give power and authority even beyond our sovereign government and look to a world government to provide us with all we want.

And when we arrive at that point, the America that the Founders gave us will be no more.

Whose political fortunes was Harry Truman trying increase when he exploited black Americans by integrating the military?

 

[bendog]

what scares me is that foxfire may actually believe that bullshit.

I forgot to post that Will Campbell passed away this week. I heard him speak twice. His book brother to a dragonfly is considered his classic but I preferred 40 acres and a goat. I may name my next dog Jackson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/u...ights-stalwart-dies-at-88.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Foxfyre]

And again we hear that oh-so-common whistling sound as the point goes flying right over their heads and they miss the message entirely. Even after they asked to have it explained to them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And again we hear that oh-so-common whistling sound as the point goes flying right over their heads and they miss the message entirely. Even after they asked to have it explained to them.

You accused the Democrats of deciding to exploit blacks for political gain.

The shift in the Democratic Party began, generally speaking, with Truman's integration of the military.

Let me rephrase the question:

How was Truman exploiting blacks with that action, and what was he trying to gain politically?

It was your accusation, now back it up.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again we hear that oh-so-common whistling sound as the point goes flying right over their heads and they miss the message entirely. Even after they asked to have it explained to them.

You accused the Democrats of deciding to exploit blacks for political gain.

The shift in the Democratic Party began, generally speaking, with Truman's integration of the military.

Let me rephrase the question:

How was Truman exploiting blacks with that action, and what was he trying to gain politically?

It was your accusation, now back it up.

No dear, I accused nobody. I was explaining the OP to you. It was not focused on individuals or personalities. It was forcused on principles that must be understood in order to be educated. And I explained it to you after you asked me to do so.

I am sorry you don't like the explanation, but I will not accommodate your diversionary tactic to quickly change the subject that no doubt is quite uncomfortable for you. Let's discuss the OP, and then perhaps later there will be time to discuss Harry Truman.

However before we get to that point, you might want to educate yourself on the history of the Truman administration summarized here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/truman-domestic/

 

[NYcarbineer]

And again we hear that oh-so-common whistling sound as the point goes flying right over their heads and they miss the message entirely. Even after they asked to have it explained to them.

You accused the Democrats of deciding to exploit blacks for political gain.

The shift in the Democratic Party began, generally speaking, with Truman's integration of the military.

Let me rephrase the question:

How was Truman exploiting blacks with that action, and what was he trying to gain politically?

It was your accusation, now back it up.

No dear, I accused nobody. I was explaining the OP to you. It was not focused on individuals or personalities. It was forcused on principles that must be understood in order to be educated. And I explained it to you after you asked me to do so.

I am sorry you don't like the explanation, but I will not accommodate your diversionary tactic to quickly change the subject that no doubt is quite uncomfortable for you. Let's discuss the OP, and then perhaps later there will be time to discuss Harry Truman.

However before we get to that point, you might want to educate yourself on the history of the Truman administration summarized here:
Domestic Policy . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

 

[Bfgrn]

The point is clear to me. But apparently nobody on the left is smart enough to see it. Or if they do see it, it is too uncomfortable for them to discuss honestly.

So they change the subject to something they are more comfortable with.

I understood the point quite well and did not see any reason that it needed to be repeated. I think PC articulated it quite well. Why is it so difficult for you and some others to see that?

Was it too complicated for you?

Would you like for me to put it into simpler terms?

By all means, give us a succinct summary of the attempted points in the OP's latest ramble.

Thank you. It provides excellent references and backup for a fairly simple concept:

1. History is clear that the Democratic Party was the party that supported slavery, that resisted emancipation, that resisted desegregation, and most resisted equal opportunity for all under the law. Those initially pushing for all those things were initially mostly Republicans.

2. When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes, they attempted to rewrite history that it was THEY who cared about black people and other downtrodden groups and it was those eeeeeevil Republicans who kept the black man down.

3. History, however, shows that Republican policies have actually been the most favorable for the black demographic that was advancing more rapidly economically than any other group BEFORE the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that growth has slowed or reversed since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

4. Convincing people that they wouldn't have made it without 'whitey's' help, that they are downtrodden and disadvantaged and impoverished because of "whitey's greed, intolerance, and racism, etc." and they cannot make it without government help is detestable. It is the sure prescrption for encouraging dependency, poverty, sub performance, anti social behavior, and resentment of society as a whole.

It is a concept that encourages people to see it as their right to have others take care of them and provide them with what they want.

5. And the tactic is then employed on a broader scale via use of liberal religious influence, liberal political policies, and a trend to ever expand government as the benefactor and savior of all the poor and downtrodden until we give power and authority even beyond our sovereign government and look to a world government to provide us with all we want.

And when we arrive at that point, the America that the Founders gave us will be no more.

Another self righteous pile of crap.

He FF, do you also embrace Lincoln's Republican Party, who favored so strong a central government in Washington that they would accept a civil war rather than see its power curbed?

During the 1860s, the Republicans favored an expansion of federal power and passed over Democratic opposition a set of laws sometimes called the Second American System, providing federal aid for the transcontinental railroad, for the state university system, for the settlement of the West by homesteaders; for a national currency and a protective tariff.

 

[Agit8r]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

Racists didn't necessarily spontaneously start voting Republican after the civil rights act. The GOP actively courted them by appealing to their prejudices.

Lee Atwater - Wikiquote

 

[Bfgrn]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

Racists didn't necessarily spontaneously start voting Republican after the civil rights act. The GOP actively courted them by appealing to their prejudices.

Lee Atwater - Wikiquote

Lee Atwater - Wikiquote

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can't say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”
Interview with Alexander P. Lamis (8 July 1981), as quoted in The Two-Party South (1984)* by Alexander P. Lamis; originally published as an interview with an anonymous insider, Atwater was not revealed to be the person interviewed until the 1990 edition; also quoted in "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant" by Bob Herbert in The New York Times (6 October 2005)

The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
Interview in Life (January 1991)

 

[Foxfyre]

You accused the Democrats of deciding to exploit blacks for political gain.

The shift in the Democratic Party began, generally speaking, with Truman's integration of the military.

Let me rephrase the question:

How was Truman exploiting blacks with that action, and what was he trying to gain politically?

It was your accusation, now back it up.

No dear, I accused nobody. I was explaining the OP to you. It was not focused on individuals or personalities. It was forcused on principles that must be understood in order to be educated. And I explained it to you after you asked me to do so.

I am sorry you don't like the explanation, but I will not accommodate your diversionary tactic to quickly change the subject that no doubt is quite uncomfortable for you. Let's discuss the OP, and then perhaps later there will be time to discuss Harry Truman.

However before we get to that point, you might want to educate yourself on the history of the Truman administration summarized here:
Domestic Policy . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No dear, I accused nobody. I was explaining the OP to you. It was not focused on individuals or personalities. It was forcused on principles that must be understood in order to be educated. And I explained it to you after you asked me to do so.

I am sorry you don't like the explanation, but I will not accommodate your diversionary tactic to quickly change the subject that no doubt is quite uncomfortable for you. Let's discuss the OP, and then perhaps later there will be time to discuss Harry Truman.

However before we get to that point, you might want to educate yourself on the history of the Truman administration summarized here:
Domestic Policy . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?

Where do you get this shit?

Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,

so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?

Does he fit your description?

 

[Bfgrn]

No dear, I accused nobody. I was explaining the OP to you. It was not focused on individuals or personalities. It was forcused on principles that must be understood in order to be educated. And I explained it to you after you asked me to do so.

I am sorry you don't like the explanation, but I will not accommodate your diversionary tactic to quickly change the subject that no doubt is quite uncomfortable for you. Let's discuss the OP, and then perhaps later there will be time to discuss Harry Truman.

However before we get to that point, you might want to educate yourself on the history of the Truman administration summarized here:
Domestic Policy . Truman . WGBH American Experience | PBS

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

People don't live in a bubble, and all your self righteous bloviation doesn't turn robins into bluejays. We need not look any farther than immigration rights, right wing racial profiling laws like Arizona SB 1070, right wing racist heroes like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, racist xenophobic rants by the very first speaker at the very first Tea Party convention, gay rights or ANY minority right issue to expose who is the prejudice party and who is the party of equal rights.

 

[Meister]

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

People don't live in a bubble, and all your self righteous bloviation doesn't turn robins into bluejays. We need not look any farther than immigration rights, right wing racial profiling laws like Arizona SB 1070, right wing racist heroes like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, racist xenophobic rants by the very first speaker at the very first Tea Party convention, gay rights or ANY minority right issue to expose who is the prejudice party and who is the party of equal rights.

Yes, because closing the border first is just racist, huh?

 

[Bfgrn]

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

People don't live in a bubble, and all your self righteous bloviation doesn't turn robins into bluejays. We need not look any farther than immigration rights, right wing racial profiling laws like Arizona SB 1070, right wing racist heroes like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, racist xenophobic rants by the very first speaker at the very first Tea Party convention, gay rights or ANY minority right issue to expose who is the prejudice party and who is the party of equal rights.

Yes, because closing the border first is just racist, huh?

Yea, THAT is all there is to it huh? The borders are 'closed'. I was born, but it just wasn't yesterday.

 

[Bfgrn]

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?

Where do you get this shit?

Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,

so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?

Does he fit your description?

Old give 'em hell Harry had these right wing turds pegged way back in 1948...

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

 

[Foxfyre]

Need I read back your testimony to you?

"When the Democrats figured out they could exploit black people to increase their own political fortunes..."

The turning point in the Democratic Party on race/segregation/discrimination issues came with Truman's integrating the military. Learn your history.

The OP is about Truman. Truman was a Democrat. Truman began the beginning of the end of the north/south liberal/conservative Democratic coalition that had existed in the past.

Just say, I was not talking about Truman, and say that you don't believe that Truman and his allies in the party were exploiting black Americans for political purposes,

and then we can move on to whoever you were talking about.

One individual does not a party make. If you had read the history of the Truman administration that I thoughtfully provided for you, you would see that.

The OP is based on a concept, a principle. It is related to the history that you and others seem desperate to rewrite but it is there and cannot be eradicated no matter how much you would like to deflect from it.

The modern history that is currently being written also has good people, bad people, indifferent people, opportunistic people, and stupid people in it regardless of what political party they might belong to. And that is why PC was not dealing in pesonalities in the OP, but rather gave a very well designed concept that I summarized for you.

You are either bright enough to see that. Or you will stick to the assigned talking points of the left and will try to deflect from the point she made rather than give it any objective consideration. It is your choice.

Defending Truman from accusations that he was an opportunistic exploiter of black Americans is an assigned liberal talking point?

Where do you get this shit?

Ok, so you concede that Truman does not fit your inane broad brush indictment of the Democratic party,

so let's move ahead a bit. Was Lyndon Johnson, by pushing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an exploiter of blacks who was just trying to score political points?

Does he fit your description?

The OP was not about Harry Truman. The OP was not about Lyndon Johnson. The OP was not about the current controversy over immigration.

But then I have long said that it is the rare leftwinger who is able to discuss a concept without benefit of personalities to exalt or discredit. Leftwingers are so very rarely able to separate and discuss a concept separate from their prejudices and assigned talking points. You gave me a Truman campaign speech. I gave you a non partisan history of the era courtesy of PBS lest you accuse me of using only partisan rightwing sources.

I happen to be an admirer of Harry Truman and am fully aware of his policies, his accomplishments, and their place in history. But I am also enough of a historian to not try to make HIM the post child of the culture and dynamics of that time. And I am not going to divert the point the OP was making by allowing you to divert me to a different topic.