An honest discussion about Racism?

"It is when the guy being bashed has threatened you with a gun."

Taxcutter asks:
Who threatened somebody with a gun then got his head bashed on the pavement?

 

"...we're supposed to believe his story of what happened? Why?"

Taxcutter says:
Because nobody challenged his story.

I tell my side. You tell your side. The court decides. If you don't tell your side, I win 1-0. This has been a principle of jurisprudence since antiquity.

 

No the leftwing media pushed the false White-Hispanic meme in order to gin up a case of White versus Black racism in the killing . . . and the entire world watched them do just that.

 

Nobody? How about Congressman John Lewis?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvipH-ouR_k

 

Calling blacks "tokens" sounds racist to me.

 

And more racism. And then you have the nerve to call the Tea Party racist.

 

And just as I said, here are 2 posts with racist remarks or stereotypes by someone on the left:

 

They're your tokens, not mine.

 

Nah, the left wing media just reported the truth.

Zimmerman is white hispanic. That's a fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but the jury found them both not guilty.

So they are just as " innocent" as George.

 

Truman was in the KKK.

I'm focusing on the facts. Then I provide proof of my assertions. You on the other hand insist on making unsupported statements many of them contradictory and outright fabrications or completely and utterly preposterous.

By party is the only statistic that matters.

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

All the statistics regarding region are superfluous and irrelevant. It says nothing regarding whether they were conservatives or liberals, nor does it prove that conservatism is racists, which is your point that you have yet to prove.

So liberal democrats passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 proving they are not racist? Why then did they not seat the Black Mississippi delegates to their national convention in that same year?

Like I said, time and time again I have shown actual acts of racism and racist acts committed by the democrat party, and the liberal politicians and liberal establishment of the democrat party.

 

Here is yet another example of you posting something that is completely contradictory. You say he was a conservative, yet post no evidence of it or cite any documentation of it, and in the same paragraph, show that he was against Nixon's "conservative Supreme Court Nominees". Why would three conservatives go to Arkansas to campaign against another conservative? I did a Google search and could not find a single description of Fulbright as a conservative.

Bill Clinton is a racist and there is plenty of other evidence besides him giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a man who spent most of his career fighting for segregation and against Civil Rights laws.

 

I'm suggesting that the first African American President should not have bowed to the pressure of his racist party hacks like Clinton and all the others democrats standing around him and attended the funeral of an Exalted Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan. He could have said, "I'll pass." Robert Byrd is the only Senator I know that used the "N-word" on the national TV and still, he had a 100% rating from the NAACP. Why? But democrats gave him a pass on that. And compare that to what they did you Trent Lot for trying to compliment Strom Thurmond on his birthday.

 

Here is where the analogy is valid: In the old days, democrats used to give blacks food and shelter in exchange for their slave labor, whereas now, they give them welfare and government housing in exchange for their votes. That is all democrats have done for blacks, make them dependent slaves for their slave masters. It would be good for the black community to wise up, the democrats have done nothing for them for the past 50 years and they are offering them nothing now. If you had watched the Allen West video you would know what I was talking about.

What is radical about Allen West? And no, I do not drink and I am not a liar.

 

Amazing that more black folks don't find these arguments at all compelling. Fortunately there are plenty of white folks around who know what's good for them.

 

You did your job. I asked for a few citations, and you gave me 1. That's all very nice, and I admire John Lewis, however Robert Kennedy was far more involved in Civil Rights then JFK. It was a nice ad for the Kennedy School at Harvard, but the fact is that JFK never pushed too hard for the Civil Rights Act. John F Kennedy is not automatically associated with civil rights issues as Kennedy's presidency is more famed for the Cuban Missile Crisis and issues surrounding the Cold War. Also, no obvious civil rights legislation was signed by Kennedy. However, Kennedy did have a major input into civil rights history - though posthumously.

Was Kennedy a keen civil rights man? In the immediate aftermath of his death, only praise was heaped on the murdered president. To do otherwise would have been considered highly unpatriotic. However, in recent years there has been a re-evaluation of Kennedy and what he did in his presidency. For a man who claimed that poor housing could be ended with the signing of the president's name, Kennedy did nothing. His Department of Urban Affairs bill was rejected by Congress and eventually only a weak housing act was passed which applied only to future federal housing projects.

Kennedy was a politician and he was acutely aware that Democrats were less than happy with a disproportionate amount of time being spent on civil rights issues when the Cold War was in full flight with Vietnam flaring up and the world settling down after the problems poised by Cuba.

Kennedy was also aware that southern Democrats were still powerful in the party and their wishes could not be totally ignored if the party was not to be split apart - ( which is exactly what happened after the CRA was passed ) or if Kennedy was not to get the party’s nomination for the 1964 election. However, there is no doubt that the violence that occurred in the South during his presidency horrified and angered him.

In many senses Kennedy was damned if he did and damned if he did not. If he helped the African Americans in the South, he lost the support of the powerful Democrats there. If he did nothing he faced world-wide condemnation especially after the scenes vividly seen in Birmingham. Even civil rights leaders in the South criticised Kennedy for doing too little. In the north, the majority population was white. This group felt that its problems were being ignored while the problems of the African Americans were being addressed. The militant African Americans of the north as seen in the Nation of Islam condemned Kennedy simply because he epitomised white power based in Washington.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john_kennedy_and_civil_rights.htm

John Kennedy was elected president in 1960 partly because of his promise to secure equal rights for black Americans. Yet, once in office, he and his brother Robert, the attorney general, sought to avoid too great an involvement in the politically divisive struggle. Violent Southern conflict about black civil rights overtook the Kennedys, forcing them to intervene on the side of the integrationists. Still, President Kennedy resisted sending strong civil rights legislation to Congress, unwilling to risk further alienating the powerful Southern conservatives blocking his domestic program.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/kennedys-and-civil-rights/

Calling JFK an icon of the Civil Rights movement is completely over the top. There's no doubt he was sympathetic to the cause, however he was also a politician and knew very well how important the Southern vote was to his election and, he would be severely limited in any action he took on that front. It was really a matter of timing. Over the years, events in the South would escalate to the point that the violence was being shown nightly on television, and the public revulsion over that violence enabled LBJ to push through legislation that Kennedy couldn't have done. Even so, LBJ was warned that if he did it, the Democrats would lose the South for generations. He knew it, but did it anyway, because it was the right thing to do. Had Kennedy lived, would he have pushed for the CRA? We'll never know. Supposedly LBJ was fulfilling what JFK had wanted during his first term. LBJ got the CRA passed, plus the Voting Rights Act plus Medicare and Medicaid. Would JFK have done that?

A guy just came out with a book titled JFK - Conservative, and claims that the president most in line with Kennedy was Ronald Reagan.

 

Okay, I present evidence and your strategy is deny, deny, deny. Strom Thurmond was a democrat. Then he became a dixiecrat. Then he became a democrat again. Then he voted against the CRA. Then he became a republican, then in the Post-1970's his views regarding race changed:

And once again you attempt to tie racism with political ideology but fail miserably as you are only expressing your personal opinion and do not supply any evidence to support your assertions. Still, you are finally admitting that it was mostly democrats who supported those racist policies even though you are still trying to defend them.

 

If you were paying any attention you would know that it was a black man's argument that we are talking about.

 

All these terrible things that democrats did yet you still stand by the democrat party.

Your post is proving my point yet again. Republicans were for the Civil Rights and democrats against it. Those three "liberals" where murdered by the KKK, a terrorist wing of the democrat party that lynched hundreds of white republicans and blacks for many year. The democrat party that fought against anti-lynching laws that the republicans supported for many decades and by many republican presidents. Still you once again are doing the same thing over and over, placing the blame of racism on conservatism without any supporting evidence. It is ridiculous...but I have provided ample evidence it was democrats, and quite often liberal democrats who inflicted these racist policies on blacks. I have plenty more even and including more recent racist policies of the democrat party. I will include them in future posts.

Regarding the Nixon racist "Southern Strategy":
In '68, Nixon lost the South to racist democrats.
As part of his evil "Southern Strategy" he desegregated the schools in the South and then he implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970—the first significant federal affirmative action program.
In '72 Nixon won all the Southern states. He also won all the Northern and Western and Alaska and Hawaii. The only state Nixon didn't win was Massachusetts. I guess that's because all those 49 states are racists.

 

No he wasn't. You're guilty of selectively editing the reference. The rest of the source says this; "According to Salisbury's version of the story, Truman was inducted, but afterward “was never active; he was just a member who wouldn't do anything”. Salisbury, however, became Truman's bitter enemy in later years, so this version is suspect

You didn't focus on facts at all. You selectively edited the source in order to "Prove" your case. You've proved nothing other than your own dishonesty.

You'd like to believe that, however they're completely relevant as you were shown.

I'm afraid you're wrong. Again. The parties were influenced entirely by region. The South was conservative to the bone. They were the remnants of the Old South and the Confederacy and no supporter of minority rights. They're the ones that wanted Jim Crow and Segregation and all of them were conservatives. And there were no Republicans down south, so it required a coalition of Northern Dems and Repubs who were all liberals from the Union States, to defeat the Conservative Dems from the Confederacy that as we all know were anti civil Rights. Their racism would never allow anything like Civil Rights to pass if they could prevent it, and Strom Thurmond, the racist conservative segregationist filibustered the bill and holds the record for the longest in Senate history.

In fact, it says everything. There are NO Liberals in the Southern States. You know this. And again, you selectively edited your source. Here's what you left out.

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

You conveniently left this out. It fully supports what I've been saying all along. Northern Democrats who were liberals in the House supported the CRA by 94%. Northern Dems in the Senate supported by 98%. All the Dems in the South were conservatives. and all of those in the North were Liberals. Same went for Repubs in the North. 85% in the House, and 84% in the Senate. So the question you have to deal with is this: Is the South conservative or is it liberal? The last time I checked they were ALL Red States. That would make them Republican today, and can you tell me if the Republicans are Liberals? Or are they Conservatives? Just tell me when the South was Liberal. I'm sure we'd all like an update on their conversion.

NO. Liberal Dems and Republicans past the CRA in 1964. You can find the information on the convention from Wiki.
"At the national convention the integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) claimed the seats for delegates for Mississippi, on the grounds that the official Mississippi delegation had been elected in violation of the party's rules because blacks had been systematically excluded from voting in the primaries, and participating in the precinct and county caucuses and the state convention; whereas the MFDP delegates had all been elected in strict compliance with party rules. The party's liberal leaders supported an even division of the seats between the two delegations. But Johnson was concerned that, while the regular Democrats of Mississippi would probably vote for Goldwater anyway, rejecting them would lose him the South. Eventually, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and the black civil rights leaders including Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin worked out a compromise: two of the 68 MFDP delegates chosen by Johnson would be made at-large delegates and the remainder would be non-voting guests of the convention; the regular Mississippi delegation was required to pledge to support the party ticket; and no future Democratic convention would accept a delegation chosen by a discriminatory poll.

Joseph Rauh, the MFDP's lawyer, initially refused this deal, but eventually urged the MFDP to accept it. But the MFDP delegates refused because by accepting the official all-white Mississippi delegation, the party validated a process in which blacks had been denied their constitutional right to vote and participate in the political process. They felt that because the MFDP had conducted their delegate selection process according to the party rules, they should be seated as the Mississippi delegation, not just a token two of them as at-large delegates. Many civil rights activists were deeply offended by the convention's outcome. As leader (and now Representative) John Lewis said, "We had played by the rules, done everything we were supposed to do, had played the game exactly as required, had arrived at the doorstep and found the door slammed in our face"
Many white delegates from Mississippi and Alabama refused to sign any pledge, and left the convention. In all, "43 of the 53 members of the Alabama delegation . . . refused to pledge their support for the national ticket of Johnson and Hubert Humphrey and were denied seating"

The white delegates from Mississippi and Alabama were still part of the conservative south and would have nothing to do with Johnson and Humphrey and their position on Civil Rights. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the convention had delegates from ALL the states and that included southern states that opposed the CRA that had been passed a month earlier. The Party was still very divided and although the CRA had passed, it took a coalition of Liberal Dems and Repubs to make it happen. The party still had southern redneck conservatives that would throw a wrench in the party business at the convention. Why would you think that the convention, which would have included Southern Conservative Dems would be in line with the position of the party leaders on Civil Rights? You aren't thinking. You're ignoring the FACT of the southern conservative Democrats that were the very people that would do anything to block blacks advancing.

You might want to examine the Republican Convention and who they nominated.

Goldwater (Mr. Conservative) only won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed by Johnson and the Northern Democrats, as well as the majority of Republicans in Congress, earlier that year.

In the end, Goldwater received 38.4% of the popular vote, and carried six states: Arizona (with 50.45% of the popular vote) and the core states of the Deep South: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In carrying Georgia by a margin of 54-45, Goldwater became the first Republican nominee to win the state. Mr. Conservative, who opposed the Civil Rights Act, carried all of the Southern States. All Conservative States. All opposed to the CRA.

It was conservatives that opposed the Civil Rights Act. Conservative Dems, Conservative Repubs. But all Conservatives. All liberals voted for it. Dems and Repubs.

As I've said all along, it's not about party. It's always been about the ideology, and conservatism and racism go hand in hand.

 

A lot of today's conservatives for whatever reason don't want to accept that those southern racist democrats were all conservatives. I'm arguing with another conservative on a different thread about the same thing.

Hell, he even thinks neo nazis and white nationalists are liberals, lol.

The fact of the matter is, groups like the southern racist democrats of the past, and neo nazis, and white nationalists, all identify as Conservative. None of these racist clowns were ever liberals. And they never will be liberals. They despise liberals.

 

First off, saying none of those republicans were conservatives is just untrue. They may have been moderate conservatives, but if they were liberals, they would have been in the democrat party. Secondly, there are many moderate conservatives in the party today. We have Senators McCain, Rubio, Graham, Hatch, and many more and that is just the Senate. Now if there was ever a party that will not accept deviation from the extreme of the party it is the democrats. There are no moderates left in the party. That is why there is no division for all practical purposes. John F. Kennedy would not be welcome in today's democrat party.

Many of those racists were not purged, in fact, like Robert Byrd the got re-elected time and time again as democrats. I know you cannot supply a list of those that were purged because you would only end up with a list of men who stayed democrat and got re-elected.

 

Fulbright voted right along with all the Southern Dems on Civil Rights. His position changed on things over the years. That happens. Politicians often change their positions on things. Look at Mitt Romney. Perhaps his most notable case of dissent was his public condemnation of foreign and domestic policies, in particular, his concern that right-wing radicalism, as espoused by the John Birch Society and wealthy oil-man H. L. Hunt, had infected the United States military. He was, in turn, denounced by Republican Senators J. Strom Thurmond and Barry M. Goldwater. Goldwater and Texas Senator John Tower announced that they were going to Arkansas to campaign against Fulbright, but Arkansas voters reelected him.

Clinton is no racist and has the vast support of the African/American community. Fulbright had a long (30 years) and varied career in the Senate and despite his opposition to the CRA, there were other things that were notable. Your contention that he spent most of his career fighting for segregation is blatantly false. During the Nixon administration Fulbright voted for a civil rights bill and led the charge against confirming Nixon's conservative Supreme Court nominees Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell. You have him confused with Strom Thurmond. His early condemnation of the Vietnamese war, and his anti-interventionist programs, had long made him a target of his party's right wing.

 

Face it. You can't name any other Dixiecrats that left the democrat party for the republican party. Again you can't bring yourself to admit is was democrats who opposed the CRA. You keep making that assertion without once ounce of proof, that conservatives were racist. I know that democrats and republicans are parties. One party just happens to have an abysmal record of racism (The democrats).

You are the one who is saying the sins of the father belong to the son - You have been saying that the South was conservative (racist) then and it is now. Those Southern Democrat racists are all dead now. The country has gotten past the racism of the 50's and 60's. People have changed their attitudes now. "State politicians could no longer ignore this voting bloc, who were allied with increasing numbers of white residents who supported civil rights." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond )

 

That's an incredibly racist thing to say. Your comment actually suggests that blacks willingly allow themselves to be slaves by accepting crappy housing and a meager welfare stipend in exchange for a vote?? Who on earth do you think you are to presume that these people would accept this kind of exchange? Would you?? No, I doubt it. But you seem to think that they would? How friggin condescending can people like you get? You think that they can be bought that easily? Do you really think they're that dumb? This is exactly why they won't have anything to do with your ilk. You haven't got a clue as to what you're saying and just exactly what it implies.

Wow! Keep it up. You're bound to win over the black vote with this kind of mentality.

Now you're implying that the black community is just too stupid to understand what's good for them? So, the African/American community is just too dumb to "get it". Well...I think they "get it". And that's why they don't want anything to do with people like you and your condescending bullsh*t.

I've seen Alan West, and he's totally nuts. That's why he was voted out after one term. And he was voted out by both whites and blacks. I wouldn't waste my time watching him or anything he has to say.

Everything. 78 to 81 Communists in congress?? Really? Say good night Alan. You're gone. You had your 15 minutes of fame. He's a bomb throwing wack-job, and he's too extreme for everyone in Florida.

(1) “YOU ARE NOT A LADY”: In July 2011, West responded to a perceived slight from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-FL) with a fiery letter in which he threatened her and scolded, “You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!” West later said he had apologized, but Wasserman-Schultz said she had not received one.


(2) JOSEPH GOEBBELS WOULD “BE VERY PROUD” OF DEMOCRATS: In December, West told reporters, “If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine.” The link to Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda from 1933 to 1945, drew criticism from several members of Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and others.

(3) LIBERALS “GET THE HELL OUT”: Speaking at the Palm Beach County GOP’s Lincoln Day Dinner in last month, West said of liberals, “Take your message of equality of achievement. … You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.” West later tried to walk back the statement, claiming he was only referring to “the message” and not liberals themselves.

(4) “A THREAT TO THE GENE POOL”: In a July 2011 post on the website Red Country, West wrote, “I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.”

(5) “I’M GOING TO KILL YOU”: Before running for Congress, West had a 22-year career in the military, but left after he abused an Iraqi detainee: “This is it. I’m going to count to five again, and if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to kill you.” He then fired a shot “a foot” over the detainee’s head.

(6) “NUTS!”: West has often clashed with opponents over the issue of Islam. In August 2011, a chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked West to sever ties with anti-Muslim activists. In response, West sent a letter which read only, “I am writing to you with regard [sic] your recent letter: NUTS!” Why West chose this response is a mystery, although he might have been quoting a World War II general who responded that way when the Nazis told him to surrender.

(7) “WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE OUR MEN BECOME SUBSERVIENT”: In April 2011, West told a conservative women’s conference that liberal women “have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness — to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t, then the debt will continue to grow…deficits will continue to grow.”

( “BLINDLY FOLLOWING A COMMANDER IN CHIEF”: Talking with radio host Mark Levin last month, West said Generals “have to be very careful about blindly following a commander in chief that really does not have the best intent for our military.” What West did not mention was that officers are constitutionally bound to follow the President’s orders unless they are illegal.

(9) I AM “THE MODERN-DAY HARRIET TUBMAN”: Speaking with O’Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham in August 2011, West said the Democratic party is a “21st-century plantation.” He added, “So I’m here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman, to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad, away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.”

(10) “LET THEM GET SHOT AT”: In May 2011, the House narrowly defeated a proposal which would have required President Obama to submit a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Of those who voted for the bill, West said, “I would take these gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion.” This was just months after the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords.

(11) “WE ALSO SHOULD BE CENSORING THE AMERICAN NEWS AGENCIES”: In response to the whistleblower website Wikileaks releasing thousands of pages of diplomatic cables, West declared: “And I think that we also should be censoring the American news agencies which enabled [Julian Assange] to do this and also supported him and applauding him for the efforts.” West later claimed he only called for “censuring” the media. Either way, it would be a First Amendment violation.

(12) “I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS A KIDNAPPING ATTEMPT”: When West first ran for Congress in 2008, the Arab news network Al Jazeera asked for an interview. West recalled, “But my b.s. flag really went up when [Al Jazeera] said they wanted my address, to pick me up at night. They said they would send a car but wouldn’t tell me where it was going. I don’t know if it was a kidnapping attempt. But I am not going to entrust Al Jazeera with my life. I said, ‘Cancel the interview!’”

(13) RELIGIOUS COEXISTENCE “WOULD GIVE AWAY OUR COUNTRY”: During a March 2011 town hall, West talked about the “Coexist” movement, saying of their bumper stickers: “Every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are.”

(14) “GEORGE BUSH GOT SNOOKERED”: During the same town hall, West claimed: “George Bush got snookered into going into some mosque, taking his shoes off, and then saying that Islam was a religion of peace.”

(15) DEMOCRATS SUPPORT “MOST INSIDIOUS FORM OF SLAVERY”: Just yesterday, West accused Democrats of supporting the worst form of slavery known today. “The Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today,” West said.

 

I posted a link about Thurmond changing his views on race. Thurmond was a segregationist, he was against civil rights (again, I must point out at the time he was a democrat) and he even joined the Dixiecrats. But he was never a member of the KKK. He never went on TV and used the "N-word" multiple times like Byrd did. If Thurmond hadn't left the democrat party in 1964, all the democrats would be praising him at his funeral and Obama would have spoken forgivingly at his "youthful dalliance".

http://www.examiner.com/article/strom-thurmond-s-truly-unpardonable-sin