An honest discussion about Racism?

Good idea. Now go out and apply for a GI Bill. An education will do you good.

Obviously you don't like logic. But that really doesn't matter. It applies whether you like the results or not.

That's a proven fact.
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Socrates is a man
C: therefore, Socrates is mortal

You can deny this all you like, but it doesn't change the truth of the conclusion. I pointed out two rules of an intellectually honest tactic to use in a debate. One of them was this; "pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic". It's completely honest on my part to point your logical flaws in your argument.

One of the signs of an intellectually dishonest argument is this: the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position, which you have done with regards to Obama having written his own books.

P1. Making claims that cannot be demonstrated as true, is intellectually dishonest.
P2. News is making a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true.
C: therefore, News is intellectually dishonest.

Modus Ponens ( affirming the antecedent)

If Patriot News makes a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true, Then he is being intellectually dishonest.
Patriot News is making a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true.
Therefore; Patriot News is intellectually dishonest.

 

I thought what Robert Kennedy said years ago was striking. He predicted that in about 40 years we might actually see a black president. Well...ok, he might have been right about that. But from the Black perspective, Kennedy had just arrived on the scene. They'd been here for 400 years? Wasn't it nice of Bobby to suggest that in time, if they were good, they just might get there?

I always find it disgusting to hear people say, I don't know if America is "ready" for a black president. Ready?? Those kind of people would never be "ready".

 

Perhaps, in person. On the internet? heh.

 

This basically sums up racism in America today.

 

That's anecdotal not institutional and not policy of republicans nor philosophies of conservatives.

 

Your problem yet again is to equate conservative with racist. It seems no matter how much I prove that Civil Rights has long been a conservative philosophy you dismiss it out of hand. Once again you employ the wrong definition of conservatism. White supremacy has never been a policy of republicans, who as I have demonstrated have always been conservatives. Did you bother to read the posts? The issues for conservatives were the same as they were 100 years ago. How can you say they were conservatives on every issue except race? And the democrats were liberals on every issue except race? Conservatives fought a civil war to preserve the union and bring freedom to 4 million slaves. Conservatives fought for woman's suffrage. It is right there in the platform I posted, did you even bother to read it?

The CRA has always been needed and it was not the first one passed. Democrats and their judicial appointees overturned the ones republicans passed earlier. You can't change historical fact by making up stuff that didn't happen. I have provided proof, it is time you provide some proof or sit down.

If blacks reject us based on racist actions (which you cannot name) or racist policies (that you cannot point to) then why would blacks vote for George Wallace and Orval Faubus, two democrat governors who actually had to have the army move them aside from the school house doors to allow blacks to attend school? It is silly for you to say that blacks reject us based on conservatism yet you have completely failed to name any conservatives by name or policies or anything that connects conservatives or the republicans with racism.

 

No, I am a conservative. We believe in civil rights. It is liberal democrats that have historically been the racists against civil rights as I have pointed out again and again. Even Buckley was for civil rights as of the date of the video. Why don't you watch it again and you will see. Yes Buckley is no liberal. He was against civil rights just as Goldwater was because they thought it unconstitutional, not for racial reasons which I believe was completely misguided.

 

Obama's community activism in the Southside of Chicago hardly gives him black street creds. Leroy Brown was from the Southside of Chicago. Did you not listen to the words of the song in the video like you didn't watch your own video you posted?

 

So where is the honest discussion of racism?

59 pages of bashing crackas.

 

Yes. It is dismissed out of hand. And for very good and very obvious reasons. Even you have to see this. At the inception of this country....was slavery an institution or not. Yes or No? It's codified into the Constitution itself in Article 1 sec 2, Article 1 sec 9, and Article 4 sec 2. The very fact that slavery is mentioned and how slaves would be counted to establish representation in congress (3/5 of a person) and how to handle runaway slaves, states in black and white that slavery was a fact of life and an institution in the formation of the country. This was the state of being in the United States and it existed before the Revolution and after until the Civil War. Maintaining and preserving that institution is a conservative ideal. (Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter.)

Freeing (or liberating) the slaves is a drastic change in the social order in this country. It is a liberal concept to change the status quo. Conservatives do not change the status quo. They hold on to it. It's radical right down to the core of every conservative that wants to hold on to his slaves. (The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.)

I don't define Conservatives. I'm using the definition that is provided by Conservatives themselves. Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan. The ideology dates back to Edmund Burke. What definition are you using?

I have been telling you over and over that this is not about Republicans. Can you not read?? And Republicans have not always been conservative. How can you say that, knowing that men like Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Ed Brooke, Jacob Javits and on and on, existed in the party? Rockefeller and Goldwater were at complete odds with each other. Goldwater the conservative and Rockefeller the Liberal. Don't try to say that Republicans were always conservative because Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. Obama would do the same thing. Does that make him a Conservative? In fact there isn't a president that wouldn't do the same thing to stop a bunch of neo-confederates from trying to secede. It's a common sense measure, and the president is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the US. However, freeing the slaves is NOT conservative. Keeping them in chains IS.

It's not a conservative platform. It's a Republican platform. How many times do you have to have this explained to you. Republican did not = Conservative, and Democrat did not = Liberal. Until you figure that out, you are hopeless. This is your view. Repub = Conservative. Dem = Liberal. That's what you think. And that is what is blocking you from understanding this.

Your problem is that all the things you find attractive about liberalism, you attempt to claim as conservative. None of it is conservative. Conservatives did not support women's suffrage. They opposed it. Giving women the right to vote is a change in the status quo. It's a liberal idea. It extends rights that didn't exist before. A conservative would block that

No. They didn't. And the platform is the Republican Party platform. Not the Conservative Party. You know this. You insist on saying that Republican = Conservative. I have shown you time and again that there were many liberals and moderates within the Party. In fact they dominated the party. Eisenhower was a moderate. Even Nixon was a moderate. Rockefeller was a Liberal. Even Romneys father was a liberal Republican. They supported civil rights. The conservative Goldwater did not.

The only way your argument can resonate is if you could make the case that all Republicans are conservative, and all Democrats are liberal. Alas...that's simply not the case. And revising history to make your case amounts to pounding a square peg into a round hole. It's never going to work.

That's right, on both counts. Now...tell me why was it needed?

That's very likely true. Especially in the deep south. They controlled everything and they certainly didn't want to see blacks emancipated by liberalizing the laws. But those democrats were all conservatives. Not liberals.

What you post is half-truth. Yes, those events happened. But not as you are presenting them. The Democrats were just as split as the Republicans and there were conservative Dems mainly from the South that would block all attempts to liberalize the civil rights of the blacks.

Considering the need for a Voting Rights Act which didn't happen until 1965, what makes you think that they were voting at all? You certainly have heard of the Poll taxes and the Jim Crow laws that prevented blacks from voting. You certainly must know that three Liberal civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia Miss...for having the gall to register black voters. And if they actually did vote, what were the choices they had? What were the alternatives to Wallace and Faubus?? You assume that blacks were out voting for these guys, when if you actually watched the video of Baldwin and Buckley one of the students at the Debate shouted out to Buckley that one thing that could be done is to let blacks in Mississippi vote. Buckley responded with a snarky comment that it wasn't about too few blacks voting, but too many whites. If that was the case, then why would the KKK kill three civil rights workers for registering blacks? They insisted that blacks weren't going to vote in Mississippi. Are you suggesting that the KKK weren't conservatives? Are you then suggesting that the civil rights workers were? You're flipping reality on it's head.

I've named so many people including Wallace, Faubus, Thurmond, and could provide a laundry list of these rednecks that were all conservatives. You simply repeat the same garbage that I'm not giving you examples. If you think that I'm wrong about this, why don't you ask blacks why they reject conservatives. They'll tell you themselves. There are different realities in play here. The White reality, and the black reality, and you cannot see reality from their perspective, despite the fact that they tell you about it and then show it to you at the polls on election day. You deny the fact of the overwhelming rejection of conservatism by minorities in every election. You can be told, and you can be shown graphically, and still you ignore it. So you continue to lose their vote, and then instead of looking at yourself, and saying, maybe it's us...you insist on thinking that you're right. If you were, you'd win their vote. So what's the problem? There's an entire history of racism that is embedded into the conservative ideology. It can't help it because it's always about preserving the existing institutions and the status quo as Buckley said, and any challenge to those institutions and the status quo will be resisted.

 

Buckley is a conservative. Goldwater is a conservative. They both opposed civil rights. They defined conservatism. How can you call yourself a conservative and be in total opposition to recognized leaders of the conservative movement?

Nope. You've pointed to conservative Democrats and even insisted that those Dems in the deep south that opposed and filibustered the CRA were liberals, which is totally ridiculous. You call them liberals, but they weren't. They were conservatives as are all Senators from the South. Your own Republican Senators today are all conservatives. The South has never sent a liberal Senator to congress. You're calling those guys liberals just to keep your false narrative alive. They weren't.

I have. Buckley NEVER says the words Civil Rights in the entire speech.

Buckley was a White Supremacist. I've posted direct quotes from his own writings in the National Review which was his own publication. These are historical facts. Buckley blames the blacks for their own condition.
The entire Southern Strategy was to pick off the white racist vote and bring them into the Republican fold. They figured they'd leave the blacks to the Democrats who now embraced Civil Rights and continue to win elections because they could always appeal to the racist voter to overwhelm the black minority.

 

Naming racist democrats only serves to prove my thesis that the democrat party has a long history of racism.

Here is PROOF (something you seem incapable of offering) that blacks voted for the same racist democrat Governors who actually stood in the doorways of schools while U.S. presidents sent in the army to desegregate them. If these men were "conservatives" which is inherently racist, why would blacks vote for them? Notice he wins over a Rockefeller known to be liberal republican with 81% of the black vote...how do you explain that?

Notice Wallace is describe as a liberal at the beginning of his career and at the end he endorses the liberal candidate Jimmy Carter, once his rival and enemy who called him the most racist, over the conservative candidate Jerry Ford.

These men were life long democrats. Neither of them converted to republicans. So, for you to claim that democrats were conservatives and republicans were liberals and they all changed positions is completely baseless. Saying blacks won't vote for republicans because of the deeds of lifelong democrats that you named is counterintuitive.

Here is proof that Wallace was a liberal:

Buckley was a writer, not a politician, and he was not a leader of the conservative movement. He never got one vote. His side did argue that they were not against recent gains in civil rights did they not? Attempting to distort the truth by omission is called a lie by omission. I'm not going to watch the entire video again just to draw quotes from it because you don't understand the argument being made. And I've shown that he changed his views on civil rights and race, but I guess because he is a conservative, you can't find forgiveness for him the ways you can for democrats who have repented they're actual acts of racism.

 

You again are making baseless accusations. When you say these men were White supremacists, you are voicing your opinion apparently because you provide no evidence to back it up. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights because he was a classic liberal or libertarian, it did not have to do with racial animosity. He is only labeled a conservative because of his fiscal policies, but his opposition to the Civil Rights Act comes from his classic liberal/libertarian views:

I know you want to think Goldwater a uber-conservative, but even later in life, he was still a classic liberal/libertarian:

Goldwater the uber-conservative endorsed Ford from the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party over conservative Ronald Reagan? The same Reagan that gave a nationally televised endorsement of Goldwater in 1964 called "A Time for Choosing"?

[video=youtube;qXBswFfh6AY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY[/video]

And once again, I have already posted proof that Buckley changed his views on the civil rights act so I won't bother posting it again. Once again I am the one providing proof of my arguments while you provide baseless statements not based in facts. I think you are outmatched so perhaps you ought to move on to someone else where you can peddle your race baiting lies.

 

You are confusing liberal republicans with liberals. Being a liberal republican means you are on the left side of the conservative spectrum, and being a conservative democrat means you are on the right side of the liberal spectrum.

The same conservative republicans that were fighting for women's suffrage were also fighting for prohibition. This is because they were conservative Christians. They needed the women's votes to get prohibition passed. If you don't know that, you don't know nuttin'.

 

Not only did I expose the lie that they were conservatives, but I posted links that stated historical facts that they were indeed described as liberals. You on the other hand have not provided any proof of your assertions.

 

Your attempt to tie Buckley to the KKK is duly noted. He had no such affiliations or alliances. The KKK is the terrorist wing of the democrat party. Every time you bring up the KKK, I will remind you that it is the terrorist wing of the democrat party. Which once again, only provides more proof that the democrat party has a long history of racism.

View attachment 23375

 

You dismiss my evidence out of hand that the republican party has always been conservative and you provide as proof that the founders were racist because they wrote slavery into the Constitution? There was no republican party then. There was also no slavery after the Civil War. Yes, conservative means we want to conserve. We wanted to conserve the Union, as well as the founders intent that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

Now when you can provide proof to your thesis let me know, otherwise, why even respond? In fact, if you make more baseless claims I will respond only with, "More baseless claims that has no evidence to prove your assertions".

 

It is not policy, but it is practice. You can step out of your ideological bubble now.

 

How would you qualify as a judge on what gives Obama "black street creds"? You aren't black. Do you speak for blacks on things like that? I doubt it. And you can stop with " I didn't watch the video I posted". That's a pathetic and boring assertion on your part and an obvious attempt at justifying your own ignorance. I posted the video because I had seen it many times, and hoped that it might educate you. Clearly you can't be salvaged in that area.

 

First: On Orville Faubus. Did you happen to notice this from the Wiki account?
"A 'moderate' on racial issues, his political realism resurfaced as he adopted racial policies that were palatable to influential white voters in the Delta region as part of a strategy to effect key social reforms and economic growth in Arkansas". "The 1954 election made Faubus sensitive to attacks from the political right. It has been suggested that this sensitivity contributed to his later stance against integration when he was challenged by segregationist elements within his own party".

"Faubus' name became internationally known during the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, when he used the National Guard to stop African Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation. His strong stand on this issue may seem surprising considering Faubus' 1954 run for governor as a progressive candidate promising to increase spending on schools and roads."

"In 1956, Faubus easily blocked a primary election challenge from State Senator James D. Johnson of Conway, the segregationist leader of conservatives" Critics have long charged that Faubus' fight in Little Rock against the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that separate schools were inherently unequal was politically motivated.

" Faubus cast himself as a moderate, he completely ignored the race issue during the 1962 election campaign, and barely secured a majority over Alford, McMath, and three other candidates"

"Faubus' decline occurred when the Democrats reformed their own party in response to public acceptance of the progressive polices followed by Rockefeller. Thus, a new generation of popular Democratic candidates easily contrasted themselves favorably in voters' minds with Faubus' old-style politics and a more conservative Republican Party which followed Rockefeller's tenure in the state."

Then of course, your offering; "While he was still an outcast from black leaders, Faubus nevertheless won a large percent of the black vote. In 1964, when he defeated the Republican Winthrop Rockefeller by a 57-43 percent margin, Faubus secured 81 percent of the black vote.

Faubus did win a large percentage of black voters, but that doesn't tell us how many actually voted? 81% of what number?

There was a logical reason why the South turned Democratic. The South hated Lincoln for freeing the slaves. They hated Reconstruction. They would have nothing to do with the Republicans.

 

Examples? Baseless charges with no supporting evidence.

 

"Segregation now, Segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" is not a liberal position to take, which is exactly why Carter called him the most racist. Just before Wallace died, he actually apologized to blacks for the things he had said and done. Drawing his line in the dirt, on segregation, and standing in the doorway of the Univ. of Alabama to block blacks from entering is not a liberal position to take. George Wallace was if nothing, an astute politician when it came to Alabama politics and their views on civil rights and integration. In other words, he knew what side his bread was buttered. "When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n******, and they stomped the floor." "In the wake of his defeat, Wallace "made a Faustian bargain," said Emory University professor Dan Carter. "In order to survive and get ahead politically in the 1960s, he sold his soul to the devil on race." He adopted a hard-line segregationist stance and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election in 1962. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied,After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race?... I was outn******* by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outn******* again."

Wallace consciously made the appeal to the racists in Alabama and it got him elected. Liberal views especially on race, would never work for him. You should be aware of the fact that all the marches from Selma to Montgomery and the beatings and hosings, and dogs, and the bombings in Birmingham ( aka "Bombingham") were directed at blacks trying to achieve civil rights. If Wallace was a liberal, he would have sided with King and John Lewis, and not with Bull Connor. The Civil Rights Movement was NOT a conservative movement. If you think the ML KING and John Lewis were/are conservatives then you're certifiably nuts. John Lewis of course is a Democratic US Rep from South Carolina. If he thought the conservatives were sympathetic to his cause...he'd be a Republican. It wasn't a bunch of liberals that fractured his skull on the Edmund Pettis Bridge.

However Wallace may have been described at the beginning and the end of his career/life is really irrelevant. What matters is where he stood during the most active part and that was in the doorway of the Univ.of Alabama blocking blacks from entering the school. He was a segregationist and a racist and that's exactly why Carter said what he said about him. His apology for his life as a segregationist is small comfort to those he abused while Governor of Alabama.

Why would they. The South was still Solid Democrat at that time. They were and still are conservatives.

No it isn't. Every Republican from the South is conservative today. They were conservative Dems back then. But what you still don't understand, and it's probably because you weren't around at the time, is that the parties had both liberals and conservatives. The Republicans had liberals and conservatives and so did the Dems. Most of the Conservatives came from the South. Most of the liberals came from the North. You also need to understand that the blacks that were able to vote ( you should remember that the Voting Rights Act came about in 1965. If they could all vote, then why would you need a Voting Rights Act?) had limited options on who to vote for. If they voted at all, they would vote for the lessor of two or three evils.

Wallace would endorse Carter because he was a Southerner. Carter was from Georgia and being a "son of the south" was important to them. Southerners are very tribalistic. He used a two-prong strategy: In the South, which most had tacitly conceded to Alabama's George Wallace, Carter ran as a moderate favorite son.

But the shift was on. Clinton won only four states of the former Confederacy, the fewest for a victorious Democrat up to that point, reaffirming that those states and the broader region had changed from being solidly Democratic to significantly supporting the Republican party. Clinton was no conservative, so why would they move away from him? The Conservative South was rejecting the direction of the Democratic Party with regards to race. The Republicans were embracing racial prejudice with the Southern Strategy and that was a logical move for the southern conservatives to turn to the Republicans. The very party they had rejected entirely after Reconstruction.

You should be aware today that the Republican Party holds ALL of the former Confederate States. Why would you think that blacks would have any interest in Republican politics knowing that the Party appeals to racists that were once Democrats and are now Republicans? If you think that the conservatives that own the South, were at one time liberals, then you know nothing. They changed parties. NOT ideology. That's why blacks have no interest in the Republicans. They're all conservatives and pander to racists.

 

You're ignorant. While trying to prove Buckley a racist you post a video proving he's not.
You're the one giving obomba street creds for Southside Chicago.
I don't need to be educated by you because you know so much that isn't so.

 

First, your post does nothing to prove Faubus was a conservative. What other conservative beliefs did he hold? If anything you have provided more evidence to bolster my thesis.

Secondly, your post does not adequately explain why 81% of blacks would vote for him? Did they all suffer long term memory loss? If Faubus is a conservative why would blacks vote for him at all? The obvious answer is he wasn't a conservative.

Thirdly, how does a long citation regarding the 1870's have any bearing th1950's?