Freedom of Speech and Maturity

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by wellwisher, Dec 8, 2015.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Well sure, if I were that naive. Everyone here knows that you apply at least one of those terms to me, thus trying to have the desired effect of ad hominem while trying to hide behind feigned pedantry. Go right ahead, fella. Whatever you feel you need to do to avoid supporting your own assertion. You at least remember which assertion you are trying to avoid, don't you?

    Now on to the Southern Strategy. Please explain, in your own words and understanding, what occurred, how it was done, and the timeline over which it occurred. If you are intellectually honest, you will at least give me an honest basis for discussing the facts with you. And before you try to demand anything of me, remember, you are the one who brought up, and made assertions about, the Southern Strategy.

    Support your assertions. Both this one and the previous one.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I think part of the question here is whether you are ignorant of this part of American history or just trolling. True, that is an unfortunate question, but also one that has relevance, since this thread is an offshoot of others in which a pretense of historical ignorance is key to supporting diverse theses postulated in defense of bigotry.

    The Southern Strategy is an invention of Lee Atwater, longtime Republican operative:

    "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"

    Rick Perlstein↱ considered the notorious 1981 remarks in 2012:

    The back-story goes like this. In 1981, Atwater, after a decade as South Carolina's most effective Republican operative, was working in Ronald Reagan's White House when he was interviewed by Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University. Lamis published the interview without using Atwater's name in his 1984 book The Two-Party South. Fifteen years later—and eight years after Atwater passed away from cancer—Lamis republished the interview in another book using Atwater’s name. For seven years no one paid much attention. Then the New York Times' Bob Herbert, a bit of an Atwater obsessive, quoted it in an October 6, 2005 column—then five more times over the next four years.

    Those words soon became legend—quoted in both screeds (The GOP-Haters Handbook, 2007) and scholarship (Corey Robin's 2011 classic work of political theory, The Reactionary Mind). Google Books records its use in ten books published so far this year alone. Curious about the remarks' context, Carter, who learned Lamis had died in 2012, asked his widow if she would consider releasing the audio of the interview, especially in light of the use of race-baiting dog-whistles (lies about Obama ending work requirements for welfare; "jokes" about his supposed Kenyan provenance) in the Romney presidential campaign. Renée Lamis, an Obama donor, agreed that very same night. For one thing she was “upset,” Carter told me, that “for some time, conservatives believed [her] husband made up the Atwater interview.” For another, she was eager to illustrate that her husband's use of the Atwater quote was scholarly, not political.

    The Southern Strategy thus dates at least to 1981, but was clearly functioning to some degree at that time; part of its validation looks to Strom Thurmond's 1978 campaign, which "won 38 percent of South Carolina's middle-class black vote":

    “That voter, in my judgment,” [Atwater] claims, “will be more likely to vote his economic interests than he will anything else. And that is the voter that I think through a fairly slow but very steady process, will go Republican.” Because race no longer matters: “In my judgment Karl Marx [is right]… the real issues ultimately will be the economic issues.” He continues, in words that uncannily echo the “47 percent tape” (nothing new under the wingnut sun), that “statistically, as the number of non-producers in the system moves toward fifty percent,” the conservative coalition cannot but expand. Voila: a new Republican majority. Racism won't have anything to do with it.

    Whatever manner of wishful thinking that was proved incorrect; prejudice and bigotry still thrive in the South, and dark skin is still among the favorite targets.

    In 1980, Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign mobilized a large evangelical bloc of unstable voters who tended to stay home when they perceived their choices being devilish; in subsequent years they have generally chosen the devils they know, but are increasingly dissatisfied with voting for devils. The evangelical bloc is key to the Southern Strategy; without them, the whole thing collapses.

    The short-term result would say the Reagan campaign pulled off a marvelous feat. The longer-term historical assessment would put that maneuver at the heart of perceived societal dysfunction; this bloc has everything to do with the current condition of the GOP.

    For the last thirty-five years, the evangelical conservative bloc has driven the right-wing backlash against women, racial and ethnic minorities, gays, and non-Christians.

    The policies have been evident; our Drug War is an excellent example. In the nineties, with white users making up nearly two-thirds of crack users, federal prosecutions for possession of crack cocaine focused almost exclusively on blacks. There are those who will claim to have never heard of what happened in Tulia, Texas↗, but there's nothing like sweeping up over a sixth of your town's black population in order to prosecute them on the basis of uncorroborated testimony from a white, crack-smoking cop with a history of criminal activity.

    The Drug War is, in fact, among the most successful manifestations of the Southern Strategy; at its height we achieved an infamous statistic of thirds: One-third of black males born will not live to see their eighteenth birthday; one-third of those who remain will be in the penal system before their thirtieth. The Drug War plainly preferred white people, sparing them its greatest wrath.

    But the Southern Strategy has also largely run its course; witness the response to #BlackLivesMatter. The #AllLivesMatter counterpoint is exceptionally and obviously racist in its context; consider that society is supposed to freak out about white evangelicals losing their authority over women and gay peple, because this is apparently a problem, but when the question is blacks being slain by zealous cops we are supposed to look away from the problem. Because it's true, when it comes to civil liberties, #AllRightsMatter, too, but these bigots are openly hostile to other people's human rights and civil liberties. There is no real point to #AllRightsMatter, because the intended audience doesn't believe that. #AllLivesMatter? Well, sure, but there is also a specific problem leading to #BlackLivesMatter. The #AllLivesMatter counterpoint is nothing more than a microiteration of the Southern Strategy in which the racist goal is subsumed under more general rhetoric. The problem of police brutality and privilege is hardly new, and shows incredibly disparate impact aganist blacks and the black community, but apparently dealing with this specific question is unfair to white people.

    When you watch conservative political arguments pretend ignorance of history, this is part of the latter-day Southern Strategy; once upon a time, empowerment majorities perched comfortably on pedestals. The idea of the Southern Strategy was a nod and wink; now that the historical narratives are imploding, the holdouts have no choice but to start all over, and pretend history never existed.

    And in between Atwater and today, we've seen strong backlash against community recovery. Through the nineties and into the new century the appeal to basic economic interest turned to assertions of rights and equality, and we witnessed an upwelling of sentiments about oppressors as victims; remember that for the empowered factions, equality was mere equality. Arguments about school funding, for instance, were couched in a weird sentiment in which the conservative conceded history, but would only go forward if we declared institutional inequality as the new equality so that the empowered classes need not give up any privilege; thus, we would all be equal, but only as long as that equality preserved inequality. Functionally, a city or county or state could not increase funding to lagging, minority populated schools in order to bring them up to par without also setting a new par for more affluent, largely-white schools.

    Rick Perry's awful gaffe, describing the Mother Emanuel massacre as an "accident", is symptomatic of a larger question about the Southern Strategy, which is the same notion that couches the question of the Confederate flag in such bizarre terms. The paradox is apparent: A dearth of supremacism equals countersupremacism; one cannot be equal unless one is superior.

    It is a common conservative paradox that is especially apparent in the Confederate flag debate. And the library debate. And the health care access debate. And human rights debates. The Southern Strategy and its devices are powerfully apparent as they continue to haunt us from beyond Lee Atwater's grave.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Perlstein, Rick. "Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy". The Nation. 13 November 2012. TheNation.com. 2 January 2016. http://bit.ly/1RWUv1B
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I assume iceaura can answer for himself, and if you wish to intimidate honest discussion of contrary opinion with baseless accusations of trolling, so be it. I'm giving iceaura the benefit of the doubt that he can, indeed, support his own assertions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    My intention is pejorative labeling of apparent dishonesty. I have made no ad hominem arguments here or anywhere.
    I handed you keywords, for researching what I do not believe anyone even marginally informed about American political history can be truly oblivious of.

    " Southern Strategy" alone, for example, in any browser, would have handed you enough to enable comprehension, via Wikipedia alone (a source biased in your favor, here), in three minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    This tactic of assigning other people the job of doing a lot of work, followed by ring-around -the-rosy with definitions etc, followed by the wingnut changing the subject, has been employed too often by "conservative" reality denialists on this forum. I see no reason to assume good faith in such claims of total basic ignorance. As the wife of my neighbor has displayed in a framed sign over the screen of the TV on which he likes to watch football: "Get it yourself, Bob".

    Meanwhile: The KKK, John Birch Society, and similar organizations, are the direct ancestors of the modern Republican Party
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2016
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I believe that is the definition of trolling. I was under the impression that members were expected to support their own assertions (instead of playing the game of accusing others of doing something untoward in an attempt to distract). You can't really expect me to argue unknown facts that you may or may not be asserting, and your understanding of the facts is the jumping off point for any adult, intellectually honest discussion. If that's not why you're here, so be it.

    Personally, I come here, when I'm bored, to refine my own thinking through challenging interactions with others. If you do not intend to prove a substantial challenge, I'll just put you on my ignore list and spend my time talking to others.
     
  9. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,127
    A New Year's toast for you Syne - "May you never be bored!" Happy Holidays...
     
    joepistole likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    So read the link I chose, if you're too lazy to type in a couple of keywords and choose for yourself. You got the name, that wasn't enough, the keywords, still not not enough, now a perfectly adequate link, all for stuff that you and I both know you had to have run across in the course of discovering that the KKK was founded and associated with the Democratic Party in the early 1900s, as was the local government that enabled the Tulsa riots - something you posted, of your own personal knowledge.

    You knew that, but you didn't know what Nixon's Southern Strategy meant to the Republican Party ever since? I call bullshit.

    The modern Republican or "Tea" Party is the modern manifestation of the US political faction and ideology formerly represented by the KKK, the John Birch Society, Josef McCarthy, various organized crime syndicates, and so forth. The standard name for this ideology, ever since Mussolini revamped it for a modern industrial society, is "fascism", but that tends to confuse people who assume jackboots and Jew-hating are required features.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    One final chance. Support your own assertion. That does not mean passing the buck off to a link (Wikipedia, really?) that you just assume correct on nothing more than, what, appeal to authority. I'm trying to engage your personal understanding of the matter (because that is the only way people actually come to any sort of understanding between them). If that's too much to ask, I'll happily ignore you from here on.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667
    Work with me for a moment, please, Syne.

    Take a look at a topic post, the one from "What is 'Rape Culture?"↗:

    Being a male in American culture, I don't quite understand the term "Rape Culture." Never in any of my experiences with other males did we discuss the virtues of rape. Sure, we talked about beautiful girls and their sexual appeal, but never did we discuss raping any of them.

    So, is this just a general term used to define male attitudes towards woman? I understand that some woman feel intimidated by men, and maybe this is simply their view of male stature in general. If it is, I find it derogatory. But I really don't know its intent when used.

    Anybody care to explain this term?

    Take a look at how it's structured. There is a pretense of ignorance: What is this thing called 'rape culture'?

    And take a look at what happens when someone makes the mistake of taking that pretense seriously↗; the reply ignores that response in order to foment a fallacy↗. Throughout that thread, none who pretended this ignorance of rape culture would acknowledge what people who assert and discuss its boundaries were saying, instead relying on bizarre straw men like―

    I believe we are entering a radical element with the "Rape Culture" rally call. It truly makes men, all men, look like savages by nature. It's an insult to our gender and to our culture. I don't buy into it.

    ―or―↗

    The term 'Rape Culture' is a false flag easily recognized by simple, hey, wait a minute. Most men are not rapists and I dont support portraying them that way i.e. rape culture and I will ridicule attempts made to do so.

    ―or even―↗

    "Rape culture" is PC hyperbole. It's a good hashtag and rallying cry, but aside from its intended emotional effect, it's meaningless.

    The argument usually boils down to: rape culture is institutionalized by patriarchy and the female half of the population only contributes due to internalized patriarchy. The problem with internalized patriarchy is that cultural momentum is not gender dependent, so behaviors of one gender justified by it are equally justified of the other, if we care to be logically consistent.

    And maybe it's just the confines of this community, or the fact that I've seen some manner of this cycle so many times in the larger world around me, but it really does ring false. This is a time of Know-Nothingism, except this time around it's a lot harder to believe the ignorance. At the very least, the longer these discussions go on, examples like that last are even more offensive for ignoring what other people at the table are saying. And the excuse that hey, they're just offering their opinions doesn't really cut it. Maybe that's all the importance the subject has to them, but in that case they need to keep that kind of useless insensitivity to themselves.

    Insofar as we might presume they are actually trying to say something useful, though, this pretense of ignorance doesn't really suit any discussion.

    If you have something to say about the Southern Strategy, say it. But stop making demands of other people. Build your own argument; don't just ask people for more and more so you can complain about what they're not giving you. It's a bullshit way to go about discussions, and that manner of misbehavior happens to be getting called out right now. Iceaura isn't joking or dodging when he says, "This tactic of assigning other people the job of doing a lot of work, followed by ring-around -the-rosy with definitions etc, followed by the wingnut changing the subject, has been employed too often by 'conservative' reality denialists on this forum." This is a real problem in maintaining any discussion along these subject lines; there is always at least somebody ready to get all self-righteous about something while pretending they have no fucking clue what they're on about.

    Try offering something affirmative. You know, an actual thesis you can promote and defend, instead of just hanging out on the fringe like some wingnut who thinks he's clever for jumping through the same stupid flaming hoop that every other poodle has mastered. Try something that doesn't require a pretense of ignorance. You know, like your bit about the KKK↑. Just once, I would like to see someone who tries to make that point acknowledge 1968 without being prompted; that is to say, recognizing history itself would be useful for someone invoking history. Nor is 1968 conclusive, but for fuck's sake, if you need to pretend that process and nexus never occurred you're doing it wrong.

    I mean, seriously, dude, it's one thing to disagree, but what the fuck is this notion that denigrating other people is so important that you need to denigrate yourself in the process? Honestly? Is there some sacred right to be specifically and deliberatly uncivilized that is so fucking important to you that you really believe civilization will end without it?

    What the hell could possibly be worth pretending such ignorance?

    Because, really, if you can't figure out that pretending you're a dolt only buries any pretense of credbility you might hope to assert, don't go making that anyone else's problem.

    You have a point to make? Then make it.

    You want to sit around like another shit-stupid brick of a human being pretending he's clever for trying the same thing ten million shit-stupid bricks have tried before―you know, because apparently nobody ever thought of this one before?―you should expect people to call you out.

    Quit crying and make your damn point, already.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    No, you aren't.

    You asked after the Southern Strategy, as if you were unfamiliar with it but unable to consult a search engine on your own. I've handed you a link to a reasonable, starting point explication of this common knowledge, no search engine expertise needed. Familiarize yourself, and return to the thread discussion with the basic background knowledge in US political history that you need to have before throwing around stuff about the relevance to this thread of the Democratic Party's deep involvement in early 1900s US racism - as you did, in post 194.

    And in 197:
    My assertion would be that the Tulsa riots were caused by garden variety racism, the same basic stuff we see in the core Republican Party voting base today - only the uppity darkie isn't in the fancy house down the street, but the fanciest house of all, in Washington DC. And it burns, don't it.
    That seems to me to imply that modern day conservatives deny their heritage in the Tulsa rioters - that they are trying to pretend the southern "conservatives" never left the Democratic Party, never became Republicans, never traded in their pointy white hoods for tricornered hats, and are not the people now calling themselves the "Tea Party" and celebrating the ascendancy of Donald Trump.

    Shuck and jive, run and hide - that was you, baby, voting for W and proud to do it. Twice . The years 2001 - 2008? You got the Court, the President, the House, and the Senate you wanted. You got the tax cuts, the trade deals, the military kick-ass, and the deregulation all on your Santa list. You were deliriously happy - a level of celebration and self-congratulation not seen since Reagan's landslide. And now you're just trying to forget it ever happened, playing blame the black guy, climbing in with the nearest thing you can find to Rush Limbaugh running for President 'cuz he never tells you your latest shit-for-brains obsession is the ugly and bigoted crackpottery the last dozen turned out to be. Speaking of freedom of speech and maturity.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The bolded bit was inferred by you, not implied by me. I asked for my stated purpose, to determine your personal understanding in the hopes of fostering a genuine dialog. If you wish to yell 'liar liar' then it is clear you are not interested in engaging in a good faith dialog.

    Trump would, arguably, be worse that Hillary.

    Who are you talking to? Some right-wing boogeyman you imagine everyone not sharing in your group-think to be? I never voted for GWB and wasn't particularly interested in politics at the time. I don't think you can claim the 'mature' mantle while painting with so wide a brush and seeking only to insult. You sure you're not a Trump supporter? Because you sure seem to share his tactics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    It was observed, not inferred. I specifically - "as if" - avoided making the inference. That's because it would have required an assumption of sincerity, honest purpose, not indicated.
    Please.
    The guys who post things like this:
    Modern "conservatives" do just as you did there: attempt to separate the Republican Party from the last fifty years of its history, and declare a do-over starting just after the most recent ugliness or embarrassment whatever it may have been. And in doing this, the personal attack is the method of choice.

    Free speech, maturity, - not so much.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The democratic party was the original party of slavery, dividing the USA, segregation, KKK, Jim Crow. Members of the democratic party even invented the rebel flag. If the rebel flag is removed as a symbol of the past, why don't we remove the Democratic party, which was the source doctrine for all of the above? The rebel flag was a smoke screen to hide the real underlying source of problems.

    Here is data that shows that the top 10 cities with the highest rate of murder as a function of political influence in 2013.

    1 - Flint, MI - Strong Support for Democrats
    2 - Detroit, MI - Strong Support for Democrats
    3 - Oakland, CA - Strong Support for Democrats
    4 - Bridgeport, CN - Leans Democrat
    5 - New Orleans, LA - Over 100 years of Democratic dominance
    6 - Cleveland, OH - Strong Support for Democrats
    7 - St. Louis, MO - Strong Support for Democrats
    8 - Jackson, Miss - Leans Democrat
    9 - Baltimore, MD - Strong Democratic Support
    10 - Newark, NJ - Over 150 years of Democratic dominance

    Many of this cites have large black populations. The party of slavery has not change in terms of affect.

    In current times, the black lives matter movement has most of its demonstrations in democratic controlled cities where the problem is seen as worse, but not noticed to be connected to the democrats. The Democratic party is still the party of segregation, even if lip service says something different. I am not sure why the Republicans don't use these statistics to draw blacks back to the party of Lincoln. Republican blacks excel in nearly all measures of the American Dream.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,667
    David Duke would be proud of you, Wellwisher. The hatred you show black people in that post is impressive.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Well, right wing entertainers everywhere from Limbaugh and Levin to Beck and Savage are proud of you for promulgating the ignorance they promulgate each and every hour of every day across the land. In order to believe their crap one must be either ignorant, mentally incapacitated, or deliberately disingenuous or some combination thereof. The Democratic Party is rooted in the foundation of this country. It came to prominence when slavery was universally legal in the United States. And like the Republican Party, it has evolved over time.

    There is no one in the modern Democratic Party who advocates or has advocated for racism. That's the unfortunate fact for you and your Republican masters/entertainers. But that doesn't stop you and your Republican masters from trying to mislead folks and appeal to their ignorance.

    And you ignore the fact that the KKK has never been associated with the Democratic Party. In fact, the modern KKK was formed to oppose the very civil rights movement which was championed and made law by Democratic congresses and presidents. And let's not forget Republicans strenuously opposed the American civil rights movement and readily accepted the Blue Dog Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While you may be that ignorant, most folks, especially those who lived through the American civil rights movement are not.

    "The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Republican Party. Tracing its heritage back to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party of the 1780-1829 era, the modern-day Democratic Party was founded around 1828, making it the world's oldest active party.[8]

    Once a stronghold of classical liberalism, modern social liberalism became a force with William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, who won the nominations in 1896, 1900, 1908, 1912 and 1916. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal coalition in the 1930s the party has promoted a social-liberal platform,[3] supporting social justice and a mixed economy.[9] The Democrats' philosophy of modern liberalism advocates social and economic equality, along with the welfare state.[10] It pursues a mixed economy by providing government intervention and regulation in the economy.[11] These interventions, such as the introduction of social programs, support for labor unions, moves toward universal health care and equal opportunity, consumer protection, and environmental protection form the core of the party's economic policy.[10][12] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)


    "The third and current manifestation of the KKK emerged after 1950, in the form of small, local, unconnected groups that use the KKK name. They focused on opposition to the Civil Rights Movement, often using violence and murder to suppress activists. It is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[14] It is estimated to have between 5,000 and 8,000 members as of 2012.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

    LOL...chery pick much?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Crime rate has noting to do with the fact that Democrats have for more than a century been the party of social justice and civil rights. Just because the Democratic Party was formed/organized when slavery was the norm and an accepted and legal practice, it doesn't mean the modern Democratic Party is the party of racial oppression, because history clearly shows it isn't.

    Well here is the thing, most people than God, are just not as ignorant as you and your Republican entertainers need them to be. They aren't ditto heads. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was opposed by Republicans and some Southern Democrats (now Republicans), isn't lip service. It's real. And who are these "Republican blacks"? Are they the folks Hannity likes to have on his show who can barely speak? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 cost the Democratic Party the support seats in congress. Those Democrats who opposed the civil rights act left the party and moved into the Republican Party where they remain to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats#New_Deal_and_after

    Unfortunately for you and those like you, most people are just not as dumb and uninformed as you need them to be - especially those folks who actually participated in civil rights movement.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    You got it backwards. I am acting like an early Republican, helping the blacks to get out of the Democratic party slavery. Why do you think the worse scenarios for the blacks are still under cities with Democratic rule? I used the murder rate as one indicator of how democratic party segregation into ghettos leads to a very negative situation, even for the blacks of character.

    Martin Luther King saw a day where people would be judged by the content of character and not the color of the skin. The Democratic party choose a quota system, because this approach was based on the color of the skin, which is Anti-King. The lure of reverse racism was a trap. Because as long as they remain connected to the party of slavery, they all never be free. If you look at a wide range of statistics for the blacks in Democratic controlled cites, you can see the disadvantage in action.

    There are blacks who do well under the Democratic party. Many of these are the racism merchants. They are the descendants of the blacks trappers who caught and sold slaves to the Portuguese, for the Democrats who lived in America. They still trap blacks into ghetto in exchange for silver from the slave traders. Reverend Sharpton does well as a slave gatherer. He promises freebies based on the color of the skin, but not based on the content of character, where freedom is.
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Freedom of speech works best with mature people who will not just buy into misrepresentations. Explain why the black lives matters movement protest mostly in Democratic controlled cities, if the Democrats are the champions of freedom? This is backwards. You are accepting propaganda but ignoring the hard data. If like saying if I add X the cake will rise, but after many attempts the cake goes flat. Would still believe that X makes cakes rise? This is irrational.

    I am staying in the present so it is harder to fabricate. Why do you think liberal education revises history? The reason is to distort the facts by hiding data.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    As usual correlation does not equal causation. What ARE the causal factors of crime in these cities?

    "The economies of a majority of the nation’s most dangerous cities have been struggling for some time. Median household income in eight of America’s most dangerous cities was more than $10,000 below the national median of $52,250 in 2013.

    In addition to low incomes, these cities’ residents suffered from high poverty rates. More than one in five residents in all but two of the most dangerous cities lived in poverty last year, well above the national average. The poverty rates in Cleveland and Detroit were particularly high, at 36.9% and 40.7%, respectively, both nearly the highest among all cities reviewed.

    Education is another factor related to crime rates. Less than 85% of adults had completed at least a high school diploma in all but one of these cities, versus the national rate of 86.6%. In Cleveland, just 78.2% of adults had completed at least high school. However, reducing poverty and improving education to help fight crime can be challenging in many cities. There are “structural disadvantages in that crime is such a cultural norm that it’s hard to fix,” Roman said."===http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/most-dangerous-cities_n_6164864.html
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Freedom of speech works best when all voices are heard.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As has been previously and repeatedly pointed out to you Republicans are all for "free speech" so long as only the Republican Party mantra is heard.

    The Black Lives Matters movement began in urban areas where most blacks live. I mean...that shouldn't be a revelation. But how is that related to murder rates? It isn't. How is that related to racial oppression? It isn't. The fact that the Black Lives matters movement exists demonstrates freedom of speech exists within Democratic controlled regions.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Do I? Facts are facts Wellwisher and they are just not supportive of your beliefs.

    Early Republican? Just what is the Democratic slavery you are trying to get "blacks" out of exactly? Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans "blacks" are free to make their own decisions. They don't need you or your fellow "early Republicans" like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, and Beck making decisions for them.

    What is Democratic rule exactly? The truth is there is very little partisan rule at the municipal level. That's why I have donated to Republicans who run for municipal offices as recently as last year. Cities have little power to "rule" or to materially change their economies. They deliver services, not economic polices. They have very little impact on economic policy, or racial policies. Higher level policies are determined at higher levels of government, mostly on the federal level. Cities are subject to and mostly impacted by policies at the federal and state level of government. In no small part because cities don't have the money to fund those initiatives and are heavily reliant upon state and federal funding.

    Do you know what affects the murder rate? Do you have evidence of Democratic induced segregation? NO you don't. Contrary to your assertions, the fact is Democratic congresses and presidents passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation which desegregated American society. And those laws were upheld by Democratically controlled courts. That isn't rhetoric, that's a very easily verifiable fact.

    Martin Luther King did see a day were people would be judged by character and not by skin color. But you are ignoring the fact that there is no racial quota law. Racial quotas were first used in the United States to discriminate against non-white immigrants. They were later resurrected by a Republican President and the courts as a means to enforce the nondiscrimination laws passed by Democratic congresses and enacted by Democratic presidents. And the courts have over time liberalized their use of quotas. In 2014 the US Supreme Court ended racial quotas. Your assertion is a fiction. Quotas were voluntarily adopted to enforce non discrimination laws and adopted by the courts in order to assist in the identification of discriminatory practices and over time the use of racial quotas have weakened and virtually ended in 2014 with a Supreme Court ruling. Racial quotas were not a Democratic conspiracy as you seem to believe.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuette_v._Coalition_to_Defend_Affirmative_Action

    OOOK....

    I am no fan of Sharpton, his notoriety and wealth is based on the exploitation of racial hatred. He is a racial version of the proverbial ambulance chaser. But that doesn't make him a slave trader or keeper. Sharpton is no different that Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or any of the other Republican entertainers you love so dearly. They too monger fear and hate just as Sharpton once did. But they do it much better and they have a louder voice as they are on Republican radio and TV virtually every hour of every day across the land. Sharpton isn't. I don't think Sharpton even has his one hour cable show today.
     

Share This Page