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.
Why wasn't Robert Byrd ever pushed out by the progressive and tolerant Democrat party for his membership in the KKK. Or did his views evolve?
In the 40s, Senator Byrd said
I will concede that in 2005 he said
An apology, but I'm not sure he is fit to serve office because of his past affiliations (sort of like CEOs of web browsers).
Maybe Democrats can explain this? Thanks!
How about progress? It's 2015 now.
I cannot account for why the people in the State of West Va kept electing the guy. But, he did attempt to redeem himself. Scalise is playing dumb (or actually is dumb) by saying he didn't know anything about the group to whom he gave a speech.
"Byrd’s Klan activities appear to have stopped sometime around 1946. While he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he consistently voted for civil rights bills after 1968. Byrd voted against both black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, but endorsed Obama in 2008, only seven years after using the "n" word on national television. Unlike Duke, Byrd is not responsible for tying any contemporary politician to a racist organization."
the ability to read beyond the one broad sentence in the article seems to escape you
Quote:
New York is one of the most segregated states for black students. It has the highest rate of black students in high-minority schools and the lowest rate of black exposure to white students. Illinois is second on both measures. Maryland is third when it comes to the share of black students in high-minority schools and fourth-lowest when it comes to black exposure to white students. California, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas also rank highly among the indicators suggesting high rates of segregation among blacks.
and if you click on the link to the study( which is only 3 sentences in), you would see they actually rank all 50 states.
You would also see that it breaks down race by geographical areas on page 13
The area that is most segregated are rural areas. Where the majority of the population is white.
The actual UCLA report does NOT define segregation by minority majority population, it just defines it by population, and states its goal to find the "State" of B vs B 60 years later and the segregation of black students in that time.
It does not attempt to find segregation of white students so we dont actually know those numbers but they can be assumed based on these finding.
so please, take the time to read the information that the article was written on. Its not going to change your mind, but at least now you will know more so you can twist it better.
Those blue state White Dems hate Blacks; don't want their kids around them. Embrace it. Own it. You're defending them.
Your argument doesnt make sense for multiple reasons, one of which you have tried to make countless times over the years.
here, ill give you a picture and let you guess.
ill give you a hint, the white people who moved out of the cities seem to be voting republican. double fail on your part.
You call them racist Dems and yet they vote republican.
and again, those 100% white schools arent called segregated, but a school that is 50.0000000001 is.
actually, since your link actually says majority minority, a school that is 20% black, 20% Latino, 11% Asian and 49% White is considered segregated since it is majority minority.
Everyone but you seems to know that Northeast states are blue states. Those blue state White Dems hate Blacks; don't want their kids around them. Embrace it. Own it. Why are you defending the blue state Dems' racism and hate. Stockholm syndrome?
Everyone but you seems to know that Northeast states are blue states. Those blue state White Dems hate Blacks; don't want their kids around them. Embrace it. Own it. Why are you defending the blue state Dems' racism and hate. Stockholm syndrome?
OMG,you are either trolling or you honestly can not comprehend what you read.
The line you keep posting is based on an average, not on the actual top 10. here is the top 10.
1. New York
2. Illinois
3.Maryland
4. Michigan
5. New Jersey
6. Pennsylvania
7. Mississippi
8. California
9. Tennessee
10. Wisconsin
11. Texas
You never took the time to read the link, you just read one line and thought it proved your point.
here is a picture of NY in case you just wanted to see #1.
Look at that, those people who moved out of the cites also voted Republican. You are calling them racist because they didnt want to live in the city and be around black people. You thought they were Democrats but you were wrong. Are you going to no longer call them racist because they vote Republican now ?
your own argument was that blue states were really blue dots with read counties, now that this argument destroys your argument of Democratic racism, you are pretending you never said it. here , ill quote you.
this thread is closed so i cant do a direct quote, but ill post the link and quote it
You should be asking yourself WHY suburban voters didn't want to support Obama with a D U.S. Senator:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Illinois is only Democrat because of Chicago and East St. Louis, both of which also happen to have the highest crime rates in the state. The rest of the state is red.
Conservatives like to trot out ol' Byrd due to the FACT that they welcomed segregationists to the GOP who fled the Democratic Party (consider Strom Thurmond). Remember, Reagan started out in politics opposing open housing and went on to object to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and sanctions against the South African apartheid regime. Yet, conservatives believe he was Mr. Civil Rights.
Hugo Black was in the Klan, too, but Brown v. Board of Education sure was a unanimous decision, huh?
Reagan objected parts of the bill of the Civil Rights Act and open housing because it went too far and violated individual freedom and private property. You liberals love the title of a bill but NEVER read the details of the bill just like Obamacare and when people who actually read and analyze it object you attack them. The devil is always in the details especially when liberals/socialists write long bills.
while Reagan was President he was against sanctions against the South African apartheid regime because the African National Congress and other militant branches of the party who wanted to take over the country were communists and extremists and the main purpose of Reagan's presidency was to defeat communism worldwide which was a far bigger threat wordlwide and win the cold war.
You liberals wouldn't understand that would be counter productive to take down a bad regime and put in place a communist extreme regime in South Africa when your main goal is to win the cold war and defeat communism.....you as a leader when making choices you pick the lesser of the 2 evils at the time.
Reagan did more for black people than Obama has done in office and all his life.
Everyone else seems to know that Northeast states are blue states. Those blue state White Dems hate Blacks; don't want their kids around them. Embrace it. Own it. Why are you defending the blue state Dems' racism and hate. Stockholm syndrome?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999
Reagan objected parts of the bill of the Civil Rights Act and open housing because it went too far and violated individual freedom and private property. You liberals love the title of a bill but NEVER read the details of the bill just like Obamacare and when people who actually read and analyze it object you attack them. The devil is always in the details especially when liberals/socialists write long bills.
Reagan did it because he was against it because it was favorable to african americans and because it was " humiliating to the South." And because he felt the Constitution already protected people from what was in the bill.
Also an objection based on ideology is never a good one.
Quote:
while Reagan was President he was against sanctions against the South African apartheid regime because the African National Congress and other militant branches of the party who wanted to take over the country were communists and extremists and the main purpose of Reagan's presidency was to defeat communism worldwide and win the cold war.
If he did believe that, he was obviously wrong. South Africa isnt communist.
Quote:
You liberals wouldn't understand that would be counter productive to take down a bad regime and put in place a communist extreme regime in South Africa when your main goal is to win the cold war and defeat communism.....you as a leader when making choices you pick the lesser of the 2 evils at the time.
Again, Reagan failed in the objective to stop a truly free South Africa and Communist South Africa never happened, and Nelson Mandela was its leader.
Either your opinion of Reagan is based on a falsehood, or he had a lot of bad information from his intelligence officers.
Quote:
]Reagan did more for black people than Obama has done in office and all his life.
nothing in your argument shows a single thing Reagan did for black people.
Everyone else seems to know that Northeast states are blue states. Those blue state White Dems hate Blacks; don't want their kids around them. Embrace it. Own it. Why are you defending the blue state Dems' racism and hate. Stockholm syndrome?
The ones who left the cites are Republicans not Democrats, you made that very argument yourself and i quoted it for you.
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.
