POLL: How Bout An Official Gesture Of Atonement For Past Sins Against African Americans?...

[bripat9643]

Jeeebus what a dumb country...Thanks GOP. see sig. Nite.

Glad I block sig propaganda.

The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?
Pubs have blocked EVERYTHING since 2/4/2010- don't be duped...again. Stimulus worked-ran out in 2010.
Total Pub Propaganda BS: ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.
I'm sorry- dupes are lovely people- but I can't take their lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid politics a minute longer. Sorry

It's atonement for GOP racism and discrimination duh.

Yeah, that's exactly how it will be painted if it's ever passed, and that's why no Republican will ever vote for it.

It's already passed and approved by the SC...

You do make some valid points. I have to admit that. Just had a conversation with a relative about how high rents are now. Too many Americans can't afford such rents. It's just getting harder & harder for people to get by. We're going backwards as a nation.

Why are rents high? any idea?

do you understand that the owner of the property has to pay the property taxes? do you understand that he has to pay for repairs done by renters? Do you understand that he has to pay the mortgages even when renters don't pay? Do you understand that he has to pay for insurance on the property?

I can tell you from personal experience, owning rental property is neither profitable or easy.

Oh boy, not really in the mood to get into it with greedy white Republican dudes over this one. The poster Franco did make some valid points though. You guys don't care that so many Americans can't afford rents. 'They're lazy, it's their own fault'... Yada Yada Yada. Movin on...

Disagreeing with your boondoggle solution does not equate to not caring. Just how would Republicans demonstrate that they cared?

 

[Papageorgio]

Please show me that Buchanan did not win all the southern delegates. He won them all, it was a sweep. Three people competed and only one to the south.

Once again you're conflating two different elections. It appears you don't know the difference between 1856 and 1860. Buchanan would be the former. Let us start there.

Buchanan did win all the Southern states, yes. But there were two people competing -- not three --- and it's hard to argue that the other one (Fillmore) was really competing anyway. The Know Nothing Party was a flash in the pan, it disappeared after this, and when it nominated Fillmore --- he wasn't even there. Nor does it seem he agreed with its platform, part of which btw was to just "ignore" the slavery question and hope it went away. So that's your only "competition", and you can't make the case that it even WAS competition.

And again, as already posted, Frémont did not even run in the South. The Republican Party didn't put out its own candidates in the South until 1868. Even Lincoln's birth state of Kentucky didn't have him on a ballot until 1864. Frémont was never on the ballot in the South. So Buchanan --- plus, if you count him, Fillmore ---- that's two people. Not "three". And barely even two.

Three people also ran in the South in 1860. They were Douglas (Democrat), Breckinridge (Southern Democrat) and Bell (Constitutional Union). No Lincoln. Wasn't on a ballot.

Breckinridge won the southern democratic nomination after they left the southern states left first Democratic convention after no nominee was named. The second convention was not attended by the southern states and the Democrats in the south made Breckenridge the nominee.

NO, they walked out of the Party's official second convention --- after some had already walked out of the first one, and THEN ran their breakaway rump convention. So they were there, and then walked out, and then went down the street to have their own party.

Right here, pal:
>> The resumed convention's first business was to decide whether to re-admit the delegates who had bolted the Charleston session, or to seat replacement delegates who had been named by pro-Douglas Democrats in some states. The credentials committee's majority report recommended re-admitting all delegates except those from Louisiana and Alabama. The minority report recommended re-admitting some of the Louisiana and Alabama delegates as well. The committee's majority report was adopted 150-100½, and the new Louisiana and Alabama delegates were seated. Many additional delegates now withdrew, including most of the remaining Southern delegates, and also a scattering of delegates from northern and far western states.[3] << (Wiki)

But the Democratic Party, independent of that, made Douglas the nominee --- not Breckinridge. Just as their 1948 convention went on and named Truman, with or without the walkouts.

As I said this is historical record, and there's not a damn thing you can do about that. By the time of their respective campaigns, Breckinridge was no more a "Democrat" than Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 was a "Republican". Same thing. A single political party doesn't run two candidates against each other. How the hell do you expect that to work?? That's the whole point of naming a nominee. "A" means one. Not two, not three ---- one.

So Buchanan won all the Southern delegates.

Breckenridge took the democrats votes in the south because democrats in the south voted for him.

Many Encyclopedias and history books call Breckenridge a southern Democrat.

Show me one that prints it like that, in lower case --- because again, the term is "Southern Democrat" --- a proper name of a specific party. As far as the political parties of whoever voted for him or anybody else, you have no way to know that; what we DO know is that the candidate presented by the Democratic Party in 1860 was Stephen Douglas of Illinois --- NOT John Breckinridge of Kentucky. Period, full stop.

And while that was going on the candidate presented by the Southern Democrats, who obviously didn't take the time to come up with a distinctive party name, was John Breckinridge of Kentucky -- not Stephen Douglas. Period, full stop.

And while that was going on the candidate presented by the Constitutional Union Party was John Bell of Tennessee.

Again, NO political party anywhere runs more than one candidate competing against each other for the same office. That is insanity. Can't be done. What do you propose would happen if the same party ran two guys, and one beat the other???

Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell all ran for the same office for three different parties; Breckinridge won in the green states, Bell won the orange, and Douglas won the single blue one, which is Missouri (plus three NJ electors as they split). Each party ran ONE candidate. Not two, not three, not a hundred and fifty eight --- ONE.

And also again, Breckinridge did NOT take the whole vote in the South anyway because you're still completely ignoring John Bell taking Tennessee, Virginia and Breckinridge's home state of Kentucky. That's not going away either.

You're just flat wrong dood. This is friggin' HISTORY. It's not up for debate.

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

1860 National Presidential Election Platforms
National (Northern) Democratic Platform (Stephen A. Douglas)
National (Southern) Democratic Platform (John C. Breckenridge)

United States presidential election of 1860 | United States government

American presidential election, 1860
presidential candidate political party electoral votes popular votes
Abraham Lincoln Republican 180 1,866,452
John C. Breckenridge Southern Democratic 72 847,953
Stephen A. Douglas Democratic 1 1,380,202
John Bell Constitution Party 39 590,901

If you disagree with all the references as Breckenridge as a Southern Democratic. Take it up with them, not me. History seems to support me.

 

[Papageorgio]

If there is no reconciliation, the wound will remain open. The problem won't go away.

Funny. I can think of all kinds of "reconciliation" that we've done in the past and it hasn't done much good. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results each time.

List the various types of reconciliation that you can remember.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

 

[paulitician]

If there is no reconciliation, the wound will remain open. The problem won't go away.

Funny. I can think of all kinds of "reconciliation" that we've done in the past and it hasn't done much good. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results each time.

List the various types of reconciliation that you can remember.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

It'll have to be a Bipartisan effort. And it doesn't have to be too complicated. Just some sort of simple official Government-sanctioned declaration stating acknowledgement of suffering and wrongdoing. A simple kind gesture like that could go a very long way.

 

[bendog]

Would you support it? Do you think it would help heal the deep wounds? Maybe an official Government-sponsored acknowledgement and atonement could lead to reconciliation.

Most African Americans still feel anger and sorrow over how they've been treated. It does seem like an open festering wound. Maybe a kind official gesture could help African Americans forgive and get some kind of closure. What do you think?

Melania must make the walk!

 

[easyt65]

...right after we offer an 'Official Gesture Of Atonement For Past Sins Against' Native Americans, Chinese/Irish (railroad workers), Japanese, etc.... Or maybe we can just offer up a world-wide blanket apology to anyone we have ever wronged, offended, pissed off, etc...

No? Just one for black because only 'BLM', right?! No problem - AGAIN: Any / all surviving slaves should be allowed to come down to their local State / Court Houses and pick up the deeds to their promised 30 acres of land and their mule....which will come with a gold-embossed letter of apology signed by Barry.

 

[g5000]

Would you support it? Do you think it would help heal the deep wounds? Maybe an official Government-sponsored acknowledgement and atonement could lead to reconciliation.

Most African Americans still feel anger and sorrow over how they've been treated. It does seem like an open festering wound. Maybe a kind official gesture could help African Americans forgive and get some kind of closure. What do you think?

Here's an idea.

Start treating everyone equally.

 

[westwall]

The government didn't enslave them. That being said if they want an official "we're sorry" that doesn't include reparations I have no problem with that. Reparations though are a non starter.

I'm willing to accept a compromise. But we have to heal this open festering wound. I think an official act could help African Americans forgive. Maybe help them find some sort of closure.

The problem with that is the jesse jacksons of the world have built their empires on creating, and maintaining, the division and hatred. obummer has furthered the separation of the races to foment exactly what is happening. A race war.

How does someone like Jesse "create" division when that division was there before they came on the scene or before they were even born?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

MLK was working towards blacks and whites working together for the common good. That's why he was assassinated. JJ has done nothing to bring the races together and instead has worked to keep them apart. He has raked in millions and millions of dollars by doing so. JJ is about HIM. He could give a crap about the black population.

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

 

[Pogo]

The Election of 1860 [ushistory.org]
FTA: Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

You just proved my point. See the CAPITAL S? "Southern Democrats" is not the same as "southern Democrats". The latter describes "Democrats who happen to live in the South"; the former is the formal name of a short-lived political party -- in any area of the country. Fun fact: Breckinridge got more votes than Douglas in Pennsylvania, which you'll remember from our previous lesson, is not part of The South.

Stephen Douglas --- Democrat
John Breckinridge -- Southern Democrat
Competitors in the same election. Along with:
Bell --- Constitutional Union
and, in the North, Lincoln -- Republican
That's three different parties in the South, four in the North. And your own Encyclopedia Britannica link says just that -- where you copied the results, the political party follows the name. And they're on different lines, for different parties. Your own link.

NO political party runs multiple candidates against each other. Think about it. Breckinridge defeated Douglas in Texas; Douglas defeated Breckinridge in Missouri. If you're a political party, your objective is to win, and you can't win if you're spreading your vote among multiple candidates.

Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912. TR had been a Republican. That didn't make him the Republican Party candidate -- that was Taft. John Anderson ran in 1980. He too was a Republican. That didn't make him the RP candidate -- that was Reagan. Ralph Nader, 2000, had been a Democrat. The DP candidate was Gore.

I can't believe it's necessary to rehash this basic level of English --- the words "democrat" and "republican" -- as generic terms, not proper names --- have been employed by myriad political parties, unrelated to each other. Thomas Jefferson's even used both of them together. We've also had for examples the National Republican Party, the Social Democratic Party and the American Republican Party, NONE of which, including Jefferson's, were related to the ongoing Duopoly.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

 

[MarcATL]

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

Are you suggesting that it was a "PROGRESSIVE" group that was responsible for killing MLK? If so, 1. which group was that, and 2. where did you get that from?

 

[Pogo]

I'm willing to accept a compromise. But we have to heal this open festering wound. I think an official act could help African Americans forgive. Maybe help them find some sort of closure.

The problem with that is the jesse jacksons of the world have built their empires on creating, and maintaining, the division and hatred. obummer has furthered the separation of the races to foment exactly what is happening. A race war.

How does someone like Jesse "create" division when that division was there before they came on the scene or before they were even born?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

MLK was working towards blacks and whites working together for the common good. That's why he was assassinated. JJ has done nothing to bring the races together and instead has worked to keep them apart. He has raked in millions and millions of dollars by doing so. JJ is about HIM. He could give a crap about the black population.

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

MOVE was certainly multiracial, but frankly they were also obnoxious. Not that that in any way justified the overreaction, but they made no bones about the fact that their strategy of blaring bullhorns into the neighborhood through the wee hours of the morning was deliberately designed to piss off the neighbors so that they, the neighbors, would rise up and take action. That was their thinking, and it's probably assuming too much of what cause-and-effect would be. It's assuming, "if we simply make our point, everyone will see and agree with it and take the action we predict" and didn't take into account human nature values of personal space.

In other words they assumed they could recruit people to activism by force.

 

[MarcATL]

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

Post the definition of "GESTURE" and what you understand by the meaning of that term.

 

[Redfish]

Jeeebus what a dumb country...Thanks GOP. see sig. Nite.

Glad I block sig propaganda.

The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty and have no health care (750k bankruptcies a year, most HAVE insurance - crap insurance!)After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?
Pubs have blocked EVERYTHING since 2/4/2010- don't be duped...again. Stimulus worked-ran out in 2010.
Total Pub Propaganda BS: ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.
I'm sorry- dupes are lovely people- but I can't take their lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid politics a minute longer. Sorry

It's atonement for GOP racism and discrimination duh.

Yeah, that's exactly how it will be painted if it's ever passed, and that's why no Republican will ever vote for it.

It's already passed and approved by the SC...

You do make some valid points. I have to admit that. Just had a conversation with a relative about how high rents are now. Too many Americans can't afford such rents. It's just getting harder & harder for people to get by. We're going backwards as a nation.

Why are rents high? any idea?

do you understand that the owner of the property has to pay the property taxes? do you understand that he has to pay for repairs done by renters? Do you understand that he has to pay the mortgages even when renters don't pay? Do you understand that he has to pay for insurance on the property?

I can tell you from personal experience, owning rental property is neither profitable or easy.

Oh boy, not really in the mood to get into it with greedy white Republican dudes over this one. The poster Franco did make some valid points though. You guys don't care that so many Americans can't afford rents. 'They're lazy, it's their own fault'... Yada Yada Yada. Movin on...

So the owner of the property should take a loss on it by charging less rent than it takes to pay the fixed expenses? How exactly would that work?

 

[Redfish]

Well that could be what the problem is. You don't have sympathy. We have to overcome our hate and fear. We have to take a bold step. Let's as a collective nation, show African Americans that we do care about their past and present plight. A kind gesture can go a very long way.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example of what is wrong with America roday.

Sometimes a kind gesture is all it takes. And that isn't happening enough these days. Too many are clinging to their old stubborn hate and pride. That's what's wrong with America today.

Is BLM making kind gestures? how about Sharpton? how about the black panthers? how about Farrakhan? How about Beyoncé and Jay Z? how about Whoopi?

Kind gestures have to go both ways, dude.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Would you support it? Do you think it would help heal the deep wounds? Maybe an official Government-sponsored acknowledgement and atonement could lead to reconciliation.

Most African Americans still feel anger and sorrow over how they've been treated. It does seem like an open festering wound. Maybe a kind official gesture could help African Americans forgive and get some kind of closure. What do you think?

Here's an idea.

Start treating everyone equally.

Here's an idea.... what makes you think we don't?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well that could be what the problem is. You don't have sympathy. We have to overcome our hate and fear. We have to take a bold step. Let's as a collective nation, show African Americans that we do care about their past and present plight. A kind gesture can go a very long way.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example of what is wrong with America roday.

Sometimes a kind gesture is all it takes. And that isn't happening enough these days. Too many are clinging to their old stubborn hate and pride. That's what's wrong with America today.

Is BLM making kind gestures? how about Sharpton? how about the black panthers? how about Farrakhan? How about Beyoncé and Jay Z? how about Whoopi?

Kind gestures have to go both ways, dude.

I know, it's always "you first".

 

[Redfish]

If there is no reconciliation, the wound will remain open. The problem won't go away.

Funny. I can think of all kinds of "reconciliation" that we've done in the past and it hasn't done much good. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results each time.

List the various types of reconciliation that you can remember.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

What type of reconciliation puts all of this to rest?

It'll have to be a Bipartisan effort. And it doesn't have to be too complicated. Just some sort of simple official Government-sanctioned declaration stating acknowledgement of suffering and wrongdoing. A simple kind gesture like that could go a very long way.

Read a history book. The gestures have been made. Why should you and I apologize for something our great great grandfathers MAY have done?

Should we also apologize to the brits for killing the redcoats?

Yes, everyone regrets part of our history, but it IS NOT OUR FAULT. We didn't do it.

 

[Redfish]

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

Are you suggesting that it was a "PROGRESSIVE" group that was responsible for killing MLK? If so, 1. which group was that, and 2. where did you get that from?

MLK was killed by a white racist, a democrat KKK member.

 

[westwall]

The problem with that is the jesse jacksons of the world have built their empires on creating, and maintaining, the division and hatred. obummer has furthered the separation of the races to foment exactly what is happening. A race war.

How does someone like Jesse "create" division when that division was there before they came on the scene or before they were even born?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

MLK was working towards blacks and whites working together for the common good. That's why he was assassinated. JJ has done nothing to bring the races together and instead has worked to keep them apart. He has raked in millions and millions of dollars by doing so. JJ is about HIM. He could give a crap about the black population.

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

MOVE was certainly multiracial, but frankly they were also obnoxious. Not that that in any way justified the overreaction, but they made no bones about the fact that their strategy of blaring bullhorns into the neighborhood through the wee hours of the morning was deliberately designed to piss off the neighbors so that they, the neighbors, would rise up and take action. That was their thinking, and it's probably assuming too much of what cause-and-effect would be. It's assuming, "if we simply make our point, everyone will see and agree with it and take the action we predict" and didn't take into account human nature values of personal space.

In other words they assumed they could recruit people to activism by force.

Yes. Their force was loud speech. The police responded by dropping bombs on them, killing 11 and burning down a couple of blocks of Philadelphia. "Overreaction?" Get stuffed...

 

[Pogo]

How does someone like Jesse "create" division when that division was there before they came on the scene or before they were even born?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

MLK was working towards blacks and whites working together for the common good. That's why he was assassinated. JJ has done nothing to bring the races together and instead has worked to keep them apart. He has raked in millions and millions of dollars by doing so. JJ is about HIM. He could give a crap about the black population.

Who assassinated him, and why?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The leaders who felt he was a threat. MOVE in Philly was likewise destroyed because they were NOT racist. They worked to bring all races together. The progressives of this world can't have that. The progressives rely on division to keep the races apart, to foment violence and hatred that they then use to advance their political agenda. It's as simple as that. The old saying "united we stand, divided we fall" is every bit as relevant today, as it was when it was uttered.

MOVE was certainly multiracial, but frankly they were also obnoxious. Not that that in any way justified the overreaction, but they made no bones about the fact that their strategy of blaring bullhorns into the neighborhood through the wee hours of the morning was deliberately designed to piss off the neighbors so that they, the neighbors, would rise up and take action. That was their thinking, and it's probably assuming too much of what cause-and-effect would be. It's assuming, "if we simply make our point, everyone will see and agree with it and take the action we predict" and didn't take into account human nature values of personal space.

In other words they assumed they could recruit people to activism by force.

Yes. Their force was loud speech. The police responded by dropping bombs on them, killing 11 and burning down a couple of blocks of Philadelphia. "Overreaction?" Get stuffed...

Yuh huh. You don't think burning down 63 houses --- when your target is one (1) ---- is an overreaction?

This happen often in your neighborhood then?