Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-18-2013, 05:51 PM
 
73,012 posts, read 62,607,656 times
Reputation: 21931

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahigherway View Post
What's sad about America is that hard work is not valued anymore. The rich are esteemed not because they worked, but because they made profits off of stocks and bonds and rigging the markets.

And Americans give them the highest salutes. THAT's sad.

The old "work ethic" has gone down the drain. Getting rich is a trick. And work is a joke.


Peace.
brian
How is what you just said particular to America? There are people all over the world trying to "get rich quick".

 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:48 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
The problem with your argument is that African Americans switched to the Democratic Party 40 years before Johnson became President.
LOL! I'll break it down for you.
Dems used to lynch blacks. Then after the CRA, passed primarily thanks to Republicans, they started pimping and pandering to them. LBJ said it himself......."I'll have those ni--ers voting for Democrats the next two hundred years'.
 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:54 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
And under the Republican Part of Richard Nixon, the Southern Strategy was used. Basically, this alienated Blacks.
Just so we are clear. You admit that the dems do what I claim they do BUT the Republicans, you say, did something else later? Got it. Moral equivalency.

And while you're at it, check the vote on the CRA by party as a %.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...pEnQ684-2Ur4gg

Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?

On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."


The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
 
Old 04-19-2013, 03:55 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Who are blacks supposed to vote for if not Democrats?
Thank you for making my point.
 
Old 04-19-2013, 04:00 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Republican candidates, especially this past election, have said some things that have insulted Black people. That would do some damage.

Republicans were also supporters of the drug war.

And as for welfare, this is the way I see it. It should be there just in case you fall, and to help you get back on your feet. On the other hand, it shouldn't be made a habit. The way welfare has been structured, it has hurt families. Rather than get rid of welfare, have it restructured.

I have thought of this as well. Reagan was pro-gun control. He signed the Mulford Act. Mulford Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Insults?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...45373924,d.aWM

You do not like the drug war? Incredible!

Clinton adopted former [R] Wis. guv Tommy Thompson's welfare-to-work in the mid 1990's.

The Mulford Act was targeted at the Black Panthers.
 
Old 04-19-2013, 04:02 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadoken View Post
I still laugh when some republican tries to say that the Democratic Party is the "true enemy of black people".
That's because you don't know any better.
 
Old 04-19-2013, 04:03 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
President Bush didn't do much about it the war on drugs or the violence in the inner cities. Neither did Clinton or Bush Sr. All Bush Sr did was put up a campaign at using Willie Horton's prison photo as fear-mongering. The one thing President Obama did do was sign a bill narrowing the disparity between the sentence for cocaine possession and crack possession. But in general, I can't think of a single president who has addressed violence in the inner city or has tried to end the drug war. No one really has.
More dodging and dancing. 'But Bush!'
 
Old 04-19-2013, 04:04 AM
 
977 posts, read 763,592 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
https://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html
 
Old 04-19-2013, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Italy
6,387 posts, read 6,368,929 times
Reputation: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
How is what you just said particular to America? There are people all over the world trying to "get rich quick".
Yes, but in America wealth is equated with godliness. So you rig the housing market, wait for the crash, cash in, and you're considered a savior because of the money you've just made.


Peace.
brian
 
Old 04-19-2013, 07:52 AM
 
73,012 posts, read 62,607,656 times
Reputation: 21931
Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
Just so we are clear. You admit that the dems do what I claim they do BUT the Republicans, you say, did something else later? Got it. Moral equivalency.

And while you're at it, check the vote on the CRA by party as a %.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...pEnQ684-2Ur4gg

Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?

On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country."

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."


The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
Show me something post-1968. That is when Black support for the Republican Party dropped for good.

And I would read this too: Lily-White Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:57 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top