DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Planned Trump Inauguration Protests

Don't forget how the Republican House would pass a budget only to have Harry Reed let it rot on his desk. Then Obama would cry the Republicans are shutting the Country down while his Media cronies would report the same!
Then as today, the Liberal/Progressives would take the stink bait, hook line and sinker!

Shame!

Uhhhh, bought and paid for applied to your girl as well. Obvious now that she has to lay people off at their foundation cause the money dried up.

We gotta stick together and hold these peoples feet to the fire ourselves.

THE CITIZENRY AGAINST THE ELECTED OFFICIAL!

It's now or never.

I see the know nothings are once again trying and convicting someone on the basis of a story told by CNN.

He has said he did not know he owned the stock because it was purchased by his broker. He would not have known until he received his next statement.

So put away the noose and allow the investigation to proceed.

Unlike most Libs, I do not hate Putin. At least you know where you truly stand with Putin and he doesn't try to hide who he is. I wouldn't want him babysitting my grandkids, but I would choose him over Trump for mental stability.

I also don't believe in all these inauguration protests. The inauguration is a foregone conclusion, these people need to focus on holding Trump accountable for everything he says or does (or fails to do) for the next for years.

This just hit me and now I HAVE to tune in on Friday!

This Friday: Orange is the New Black!

Can't miss that!

On Friday we swear in another minority President.

What percent of our population are Orange?

Anyone attending the women's march?

I'm not, but my fiancé and I are planning on attending the Inauguration. Not that we were big Trump supporters to start, but we only live a few hours away and it's not a bad drive for what promises to be some very interesting people watching Unfortunately our middle kid came down with strep today so I don't know if we'll still be able to go. My hope is to get a bunch of pics and vids and post a "What I Saw" thread.

That would be cool. Hopefully you'll be able to go.

ACLU will be pissed. They don't want cops filming anyone so that the protests can turn in to riots and violence without accountability.

I read an article on that.. evidently they are simultaneously telling protests to video tape everything while arguing that police body cams should be turned off..

Some Liberal fool lit himself on fire last night in front of the Trump hotel in protest.

We know now what we are up against so we are prepared.
-3,000 addition Police Officers have been added.
-5,000 National Guard troops will be there.
-At least 1000 Bikers will be there and the Militia's are aware of the situation.

Maybe this will be the beginning of the Civil War. Time will tell.

So he did what some Buddhist monks do in protest?

And you somehow equate that to a civil war?

Helicopters flying over the house, they are shutting down roads left and right.

You need to knock this civil war crap off. It's not funny.

Not meant to be funny.
Open your eyes to what is now happening in America.

I am a student of History and can tell you this Nation has only twice before been this split with one side acting so violently.
Where many of the Nations leaders call a President illegitimate and boycott his swearing in.
The Vice President in a speech last night warned of the collapse of the liberal international order.

Those two times...
The Revolution and The Civil War.

This ain't peace and love hippies, this is hate and anger socialists.

I know, I know, I was a Joke when I told you Trump would be President too.

wasn't it the conservatives who started a civil war so they could keep their slaves?

oh my bad. lol, y'all word it "state's rights".

No, it was Abe Lincoln who started a war to keep the union together...

And the Democrats boycotted his swearing in and began to act violently across the Nation.

and it was the confederacy that antagonized the war because of.... my bad, was about to say slavery.

state rights.

and didn't the confederacy attack first? yea, fort sumter, 1861.

Don't know what party most of the south was when the civil war started, but I'm sure they went democrat pretty fast, and then formed the klan when they lost.

They may have called them conservatives back then, but they are in no way what we would call conservative today.

State rights is an absolute conservative thing today. Same as Extreme religious ideology.

That definitely fit the mold in 1861.

Are you trying to say that because slave owners were considered 'conservative' back then that we conservatives today are wanting to bring back slave ownership?

Whatever you call it, the Republican Party is the party that ended slavery.

I'm saying you hear conservatives talking about states rights then, and you're hearing them talk about state rights now.

I'm not saying slavery was a conservative thing. Slavery, at least in that time period, was a global thing period. Most countries had slaves. I get that.

But I'm adding the religious angle to it, which ties into conservative ideology.

Remember, the religious excuse for slavery was that Africans had black skin because they were cursed by god, and this meant to be enslaved.

Religion was also used as an excuse to keep blacks and whites separate during segregation. Not the main excuse, but an excuse nonetheless.

And thanks 40, for us getting into a discussion that has nothing to do with these protest, again. Jeez.

Wow.

I hadn't heard most of what you stated.

So, religious people are mostly of the conservative ideology?

The religious excuse for slavery was that Africans had black skin and there fore cursed by God?

I've never heard of that before.

Yes.

I learned that in school in my black studies course.

Also, there's plenty of information on the web of it:

It's called the curse of ham.

The explanation that black Africans, as the "sons of Ham", were cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.[57][58] The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labour

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

THIS BIBLICAL STORY has been the single greatest justification for Black slavery for more than a thousand years. It is a strange justification indeed, for there is no reference in it to Blacks at all. And yet just about everyone, especially in the antebellum American South, understood that in this story God meant to curse black Africans with eternal slavery, the so-called Curse of Ham. As one proslavery author wrote in 1838, "The blacks were originally designed to vassalage by the Patriarch Noah."1

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7641.html

There's so much history out there that y'all aren't aware of.

Religion has been used as justification to control the masses and enslave people for centuries. I'm not pulling this out my ass.

My best friend who happens to be Black can smoke a mean ham.

So maybe there is some truth to the story?


Now that right there is some funny, Ted.

Dammit, now I'm hungry for some Honey Baked Ham!

Yeah, I still hadn't heard of any of that stuff before.

For a guy that doesn't believe in the Bible, or religion.....it's weird you cite those both.

But, you learned it in your black studies course. I wish my h.s. would've had that. I wish the extremely liberal college I went to would've had that.

I don't believe in the Bible.

Listen to what I'm saying. I'm saying that religion was the excuse used to justify slavery. The curse of ham was the backdrop to that. That has nothing to do with me believing in it.

Dude, I had to learn a lot of this on my own. I chose to go to black studies as an elective requirement for diversity.

You know what else history doesn't teach? Look up Tulsa, 1921.

The info is out there. You just have to want to learn it.

Fair enough.

What religion were/are the africans that sold their fellow africans into slavery?

What does that have to do with the civil war and justification for slavery leading up to that?

Are you gonna actually address the information I gave you?

I feel I did. But obviously not up to your standards.

You didn't at all.

The only thing you said was you never heard about it, then tried to deflect and ask me about why I brought religion up.

You've said absolutely nothing about the situation itself.

Okay.

They didn't know it would be chattel slavery. They probably would have asked for far more had they known.

That's why I've tried to contribute to this forum on race issues for many years. There are an overabundance of American citizens who don't know their nation's history. Arch- what Swish just posted is nothing new to me. I'd heard these accounts from BOTH sides of My Family Tree since I was old enough to understand speech.

Ironically, it was Wayne Brown, my 10th grade civics and history teacher, who verified my family's stories with scholarly historical attributions from the 40's, 50's, 60's (I was his student in 1972).

Wayne Brown wasn't 'brown' at all. He was a White History major from Indiana University. He was also my HS swim team coach. The same coach who threatened to sue 2 or 3 school districts whose swim teams refused to hold meets while Tony Cotterman and I were on Lima Senior's team.

_________

There is a lot of American History that has been kept from Her people. There has been an active effort to suppress the recent chapter of American history that deals with the Southern Democrats' defection from the ranks, after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" has been all but wiped clean from modern history textbooks.

It's why I always chuckle when I read that "Republicans freed the slaves." Not because it isn't true (it is)... but because the Republican Party of the late 1800's through the mid 1950's was very different from the Modern Republican Party.

I'm amazed (and appalled) at the number of Americans who are STILL not aware of the political tectonic shift that happened in the first half of the 60's. It's either that- or this: they are totally aware of it, and are completely happy to perpetuate the myth that somehow, today's Republican Party follows the same ideology that guided "The Party of Lincoln."

Today's prevailing attitude was introduced during Goerge McGonern's campaign. It was codified during Richard Nixon's reign, and cofidied during George HW Bush's campaign, when he used 'the Willie Horton ad' to attack Dukakis.

It was burnished to fine luster during during Ronald Reagan's campaign, when he invoked his 'Welfare Queens' rhetoric.

Talk such as this has always moved American politics in the short-term. It has never stopped the American Public from taking our country to someplace new. If it was actually effectual, I would still be a slave.... and I'm not.

I have both Republicans and Democrats to thank for my current lot in life.

BUT: Modern Republicans have done less to help me than Modern Democrats have, in my time on Earth.

_________________

Arch: you know of my familial background: Teachers, scientists, mathematicians, architects, scholars, social activists... I was getting this 'supplemental education' at every family reunion I ever attended, since this incredible American Family gathered me into their arms. For me, 'school was in session' at every family gathering. I've been a student of current events and History ever since I reached the age of cognition, and I've been working my ass off to tell you (...and anyone else who's chosen to listen):

You've been given only a slice of what's truly been real.
Today's "Republican Party" bears little to no resemblance to the party that helped to pass the the Voting Rights Bill in 1965.

Even today, we have a systemic approach to voting that minimizes the impact of minorities in any given election cycle. It's called 'Gerrymandering.'

The combination of Gerrymandering and tightened-down 'voter restriction' laws puts an undue burden on some American voters, while allowing others unfettered access to our voting rights.

When someone like Archbolddawg can vote in a 10-minute time window during his lunch break, and someone like Clemdawg must stand on queue for more than 2 hours... the fix is in, son. And PLEEEEEZ don't speak to me of "population density, "small-town efficiency," or anything else. We have the means to make voting rights free and fair for all.

Republicans have been working on this initiative for decades. The new "Gerrymandering' results are direct evidence of that.

You may vote R in many of your elections in Archbold, Ohio... but you do so without understanding what extra steps folks must go through in Toledo- to exercise those exact same rights.

I stood on-line for almost 2 hours to cast my 2012 votes. You'd be amazed at the stories I heard: Two folks in line near me talked about losing a day's paycheck to exercise their right to vote. One woman said that she might lose her job, if she deigned to exercise her right to vote. My wife & Me stood on-line for two hours that day... and we both gave her a heartfelt hug, when we left the polling center together.

____________

Arch: Swish is telling you something that I would tell you, too. So is CHS. So is anyone who fits our 'American profile,' but doesn't speak up in forums like this. We all come from completely different generations, gene pools, and ways of life... and yet, we've experienced the exact same damned things.

That isn't coincidence, my friend...
That's reality.
For a good number of us.

___________


Today's Republican Party bears little to no similarity to The Party of Lincoln... and that's why I view them as the number one impediment to the ideals that MLK espoused... even though he was a registered Republican during his lifetime.

_________________

I thank Wayne Brown- a White man- for verifying (with published historical treatises to back him up) what I was told by My Forebears.

Arch: you are a brother of mine. We live our lives from the same ideals. We were both born in The United States of America... but we've lived very different lives. Some of that has to do with the whole urban/rural thing. But some of it really has been because of race.

Because of that, I will (most probably) always be a different American than you... but I will go to my grave believing that folks like you and I can find common ground upon which we can move toward the future.

To be truthful, I believe that 40 is right: there might possibly be a civil war in our future. It will not be based upon race, as much as it will be based upon class.

Poor, disenfranchised Whites are now living under the same socioeconomic conditions that have plagued Black Americans since the dawn of America.

The "Politics of Division" can only work for so long.

When poor, disenfranchised Euro-Americans join forces with America's Blacks... the walls will come a-tumblin' down.

This will happen when Archbold families get Gerrymadered out of the political process like American Blacks have.


There's a change a-comin'....

Hopefully no one puts in on the hit on someone who leads such a movement. We don't need another Memphis incident to kill a movement.

Young Dawg... The Movement will always be too wide and too deep to be killed off by the death of any one person.

Trust TF outta that, son.

Martin started this movement... and he's been dead for 50+ years.
I'm still here, and talking his message on The Daily.

Martyrs die... but their message never does.

Shame too, it used to be kind of an American thing, that's why we are the United States of America and not just America..... then along came FDR and the New Deal and democrats realized, HOLY CRAP, we can control far more people if we control them from the federal level and make states grovel to us when they need money to build a road or assist their poor.. and as long as we keep promising them more and more stuff and making other people pay for it, we can maintain a good hold on power..