Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously you never studied your history. The main guy in the video knows more than you do on the topic.
He was right when he dropped them names but one thing he fail to realise is that the parties changes, the country was changing too and i also beleive he doesn't know much about lincoln outside of emancipation i also bet he doesn't know that lincoln supported illinois antebellum and black code laws
and you can deny that all you want, 90% of blacks are not gonna leave the republican party for nothing, nobody!
and you see how well off Africa is with Muslims running around chopping people to bits all over the country too.
The guys running around in Rwanda causing a genocide that resulted in the killing of 500,000 to 1,000,000 people was mostly done by Hutus Catholics against non-Christian Tutsis. The Tutsis also have plenty of blood on their hands too.
In the history of conflict in Africa no one religion can claim the moral high ground.
He was right when he dropped them names but one thing he fail to realise is that the parties changes, the country was changing too and i also beleive he doesn't know much about lincoln outside of emancipation i also bet he doesn't know that lincoln supported illinois antebellum and black code laws
and you can deny that all you want, 90% of blacks are not gonna leave the republican party for nothing, nobody!
Times do change dont they
Yes, times change and parties evolve. Sometimes change is for the better and sometimes for the worse. I believe that was his point. The democrats did fight against passage of the civil rights legislation and their social entitlement policies have and continue to keep minorities and the poor pigeon-holed by the social welfare programs that promote generational dependency on welfare.
Would you like to re-state your point as I'm not certain I understand exactly what you are arguing. Thank you.
DENMARK vessey was not a republican, the republican party was not even born from wisconsin yet.. Denmark Vesey (originally Telemaque, 1767? — July 2, 1822) was an African Americanslave, and later a freeman, who planned what would have been one of the largest slave rebellions in the United States had word of the plans not been leaked. City authorities arrested the plot's leaders before the uprising could begin, and Vesey and others were tried and executed.
Vesey began to plan a slave rebellion. His insurrection, which was to take place on Bastille Day, July 14, 1822, became known to thousands of blacks throughout Charleston and along the Carolina coast. The plot called for Vesey and his group of slaves and free blacks to slay their masters and temporarily seize the city of Charleston. Shortly after the rebellion was to take place, Vesey and his followers planned to sail to Haiti to escape retaliation. The plot was leaked by two slaves opposed to Vesey's scheme Reference for Denmark Vesey - Search.com
DENMARK VESSEY among others like nat turner would be seen as terrorist today
As far as I'm concerned they are both wingnuts. The Black Tea party dude had a sign that said "The Democrats are the KKK" How can you say that is not a wingnut??
The constant welfare the poor receive does not do much to elevate the economic status of the poor. Why work for xxx a month when I can get xxx for doing nothing plus work on the side for cash. While disregarding the chance that employment brings advancement and with that, higher income they have held themselves back with the aid of welfare. Blacks compromise a higher percentage of the poor compared to other races. The Dems are known to support "social programs" more than the repubs.
Yes, times change and parties evolve. Sometimes change is for the better and sometimes for the worse. I believe that was his point. The democrats did fight against passage of the civil rights legislation and their social entitlement policies have and continue to keep minorities and the poor pigeon-holed by the social welfare programs that promote generational dependency on welfare.
Would you like to re-state your point as I'm not certain I understand exactly what you are arguing. Thank you.
dont make a point about one party with out the other, as i said many times blacks didnt take too kindly to state rights
Quote:
The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.
The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats
Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******
Goldwater ran a conservative campaign, part of which emphasized "states' rights Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....you make no sense
