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.
1 You were doing great, until you got to "...and formed the Dixicrat Party." There was never a "Dixicrat Party." The Dixiecrats, like the Blue Dog Coalition, where Democrats and remained within the Democrat Party. They did not form a separate political party. Dixiecrats did indeed support segregation, as you said. They considered themselves as pro-State's Rights. Their success peaked when former Gov. George Wallace ran as an Independent for President in 1968. Wallace gained the Electors from five southern States which gave him 48 Electoral Votes.
During the 1972 General Election, those five southern States that voted for Wallace voted for Nixon instead, having felt betrayed by the Democrat Party.
2 I disagree. The Democrat Party is clearly still a racist and sexist party, as evidenced by their ardent support for Affirmative Action. They claim to be tolerant, but in reality are the least tolerant of any political party. The Republican Party has exactly the opposite problem. The Republican Party is overly tolerant, including bigots, religious zealots, and conspiracy theory nuts among their ranks.
3 During the 1990s, after the GOP victory in 1994, hundreds of Democrats nationwide switched parties to become Republicans. Including Gov. Perry. None of them were conservative, they just wanted to remain with the political party in power. They were opportunist liberals, and they are the biggest problem with the GOP to this day, and the primary reason why so many true conservatives have abandoned the GOP.
1 I am always open to be educated and if there was never a Dixicrat Party then I stand corrected and am a smarter man today than yesterday. However, whether they formed an actual party or not does not change the facts of racism seeking to find political representation. I do not think that its far fetched to say that most southern whites were racist to some degree or another. Thus, tracking the southern voters, particularly the southern white male, tracks to which party best represents the interest of racist. The majority of southern white males voted Democrat for a long time, which means that the democratic party best represented the interest of racist via their policies or absense of policies. After the civil rights movement the white southern male gradually shifted to the Republican party and blacks shifted almost totally to the Democratic Party. Blacks used to identify with the Republican Party in much stronger percentages than they do today. As blacks shifted to the democratic party as a means of seeking equality Southern whites shifted more to the Republican party in opposition to those aspirations.
States rights was just a way of saying we have the right to have racist laws in our state and if notherners don't want such laws in their state thats there business, but do not try to impose it upon the south.
2. I agree that in the context of simply looking a moment in time, and not the continuum of time, that AA and the like is racist or discriminatory. However, using that "snap shot" form of reasoning sending people to jail is a crime. In other words, if all that is of value is the moment in time, then society should not try to send people to correctional facilities to "correct" past wrongs. Affirmative Action was a measure to correct past wrongs and in the context of those past wrongs are "balancing measures", not measures that seek to promote or preserve racial superiority.
3 Again, I am less interested in tracking the actual politician movement than I am tracking who the traditional racist electorate vote for. If one wants to find which party best represents the interest of racist, just track the traditional racist states and see what party they vote for.
That might very well be true, but when you couple that with the real racism that exist from the right.....then one could see the quagmire that puts blacks under.
The right likes to talk about the racism on the left and the left wants to talk about the racism on the right but when blacks want to talk about racism people act as if it does not exist or is a non issue.
You have fallen into the trap and bought into the big lie and propaganda put forth by the left.
You claim that racism is on the right. What part of their platform is racist? Do they support certain laws that deny people things based on race? I know they don't support affirmative action for the most part which shows that they are NOT racist as they think that race shoul dnot play a part in hiring or decision making.
Tell me, what is more racist: Keeping a person on welfare in order to control them and thinking they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves or helping them to get better and getting them off welfare?
I can't be bothered to read that entire diatribe but wanted to add that "teaching someone to fish" isn't meant to be a literal translation. It's meant to teach people how to become self sufficient and fend and provide for themselves, not be reliant on some other entity to provide for them.
What if you are a child and your parents are not teaching you to be self sufficient? Who teaches you then?
It's not my responsibility to educate you. You're not my kid. I'm not stopping you. It's up to you.
You are a shining example of the entitlement mentality.
It might not be your responsibility but in some way you will pay a price, whether it be higher cost from indegent care, higher insurance cost, food cost etc, due to an increase in crime, higher security cost etc. That is what would happen if abject poverty was allowed to ferment by removing the liberal safety nets. With the safety nets it cost you in tax dollars as well. On the other hand, if the poor were invested in to the degree that they became educated and productive most of those cost to you could become beneifts to you as a result of reduce taxes for transfer payments, reduced crime and its cost, increased revenue for small businesses, etc, which all could benefit you. That sounds like a slam dunk to me.....unless one had some vested interest in the poor remaining poor...which was my point.
You have fallen into the trap and bought into the big lie and propaganda put forth by the left.
You claim that racism is on the right. What part of their platform is racist? Do they support certain laws that deny people things based on race? I know they don't support affirmative action for the most part which shows that they are NOT racist as they think that race shoul dnot play a part in hiring or decision making.
Tell me, what is more racist: Keeping a person on welfare in order to control them and thinking they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves or helping them to get better and getting them off welfare?
When a race is down racism can and does manifest by resisting policies and efforts to right the people to a state of equality, which should have been a moral imparitive given the efforts society put into bringing them down. Laws to keep blacks down have been outlawed and the goal now of racist, post civil rights, is to make sure no laws help blacks get up to equality.
1 I am always open to be educated and if there was never a Dixicrat Party then I stand corrected and am a smarter man today than yesterday. However, whether they formed an actual party or not does not change the facts of racism seeking to find political representation. I do not think that its far fetched to say that most southern whites were racist to some degree or another. Thus, tracking the southern voters, particularly the southern white male, tracks to which party best represents the interest of racist. The majority of southern white males voted Democrat for a long time, which means that the democratic party best represented the interest of racist via their policies or absense of policies. After the civil rights movement the white southern male gradually shifted to the Republican party and blacks shifted almost totally to the Democratic Party. Blacks used to identify with the Republican Party in much stronger percentages than they do today. As blacks shifted to the democratic party as a means of seeking equality Southern whites shifted more to the Republican party in opposition to those aspirations.
States rights was just a way of saying we have the right to have racist laws in our state and if notherners don't want such laws in their state thats there business, but do not try to impose it upon the south.
Blacks use to identify themselves with the Republican Party until FDR became President. It also marks the beginning of the federal social programs. Granted, many blacks also became Democrats as a result of the Civil Rights Act. However, that had more to do with LBJ than the Democrats in Congress who largely opposed the bill. As today, many people mistakenly credit or blame Presidents for acts of Congress (e.g., "ObamaCare").
LBJ was a big proponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So much so that he actively sought Republican support, knowing that he could not get the majority of the Democrats to support the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
2. I agree that in the context of simply looking a moment in time, and not the continuum of time, that AA and the like is racist or discriminatory. However, using that "snap shot" form of reasoning sending people to jail is a crime. In other words, if all that is of value is the moment in time, then society should not try to send people to correctional facilities to "correct" past wrongs. Affirmative Action was a measure to correct past wrongs and in the context of those past wrongs are "balancing measures", not measures that seek to promote or preserve racial superiority.
Affirmative Action is social re-engineering, and should not exist at the federal level. Any deliberate discrimination, in favor or against, violates the 14th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
3 Again, I am less interested in tracking the actual politician movement than I am tracking who the traditional racist electorate vote for. If one wants to find which party best represents the interest of racist, just track the traditional racist states and see what party they vote for.
That is more difficult than you might think. Nebraska, for example, is not a southern State, but it was a slave State, and they split their Electoral College vote.
Society does offer that education and hard work is the explanation of how and why the rich became rich, which suggest that if one wants to be rich also that education and hard work is the path. What you are suggesting is that education and hard work does not explain, totally, why and how the rich are rich....and I would agree.
I have never met anyone who says all Americans can become as rich as George Soros. And I have never met anyone who says that the super wealthy only got there with hard work.
To get wealthy, you typically must work hard and get lucky. Or, as in the case of some, start with an inheritance.
But, it remains true that a comfortable life is available to all healthy Americans. The problem is that most don't have the self discipline to achieve it. But that does not mean there is no opportunity.
And by the way, millions of us have made a comfortable life WITHOUT a college degree.
Quote:
Again, if this was true there would never be recessions or depression. I guess, based upon your theory, recession are the result of increased laziness that fluctuates in cycles.
Recessions are normal economic cycles. Depressions are what happens when government interferes with normal economic cycles.
Nobody said there would not be ups and downs. At any point in time, many individuals will be disadvantaged. Some companies will succeed and some will fail every year. Some workers will be hired and some will be laid off. That's normal, and the government should let it happen.
Today, there are more than 3 million job openings. You only need one of them. The opportunity for a comfortable life in the USA is alive and well and is as available today as it was in the past.
It might not be your responsibility but in some way you will pay a price, whether it be higher cost from indegent care, higher insurance cost, food cost etc, due to an increase in crime, higher security cost etc. That is what would happen if abject poverty was allowed to ferment by removing the liberal safety nets. With the safety nets it cost you in tax dollars as well. On the other hand, if the poor were invested in to the degree that they became educated and productive most of those cost to you could become beneifts to you as a result of reduce taxes for transfer payments, reduced crime and its cost, increased revenue for small businesses, etc, which all could benefit you. That sounds like a slam dunk to me.....unless one had some vested interest in the poor remaining poor...which was my point.
What if...........???? The slippery slope argument is one of the top ten logical fallacies. Try again.
Blacks use to identify themselves with the Republican Party until FDR became President. It also marks the beginning of the federal social programs. Granted, many blacks also became Democrats as a result of the Civil Rights Act. However, that had more to do with LBJ than the Democrats in Congress who largely opposed the bill. As today, many people mistakenly credit or blame Presidents for acts of Congress (e.g., "ObamaCare").
LBJ was a big proponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So much so that he actively sought Republican support, knowing that he could not get the majority of the Democrats to support the bill.
OK
Quote:
Affirmative Action is social re-engineering, and should not exist at the federal level. Any deliberate discrimination, in favor or against, violates the 14th Amendment.
I do not know if I believe AA is the best way to reconcile equality. What, in my opinion, should have manifested was a Marshll Plan to rebuid black America in the same way effort was made to rebuild Europe after WWII. Eitherway, its not absurd to think that racist would seek to resist any such efforts. Granted, I am not saying that all who resist such efforts are racist, but that most racist would resist such efforts.
Quote:
That is more difficult than you might think. Nebraska, for example, is not a southern State, but it was a slave State, and they split their Electoral College vote.
Let me also note that racism was not confined to the South....as many blacks learned when they moved North.
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.
