DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Black/White

I'm not really sure how my post is arguing with anyone...

Everything I said is a fact. If you're saying otherwise I challenge you to show it isn't. I expect a more educated response than yours. If you can't answer my questions or see how solving those issues would provide a better like for African Americans then you've got a problem.

I think in order to be fair, you would have to look at this issue by economic income as well. There is lower income and other economic issues that affect the crime rate. Chances are that a person making 6 figures is not going to be involved in crime.

I grew up knowing what it means to be below the poverty line, so I have a sense of what goes on. I will suggest that there are other issues other than race.

Using the general population as a basis inherently results in a skewed data set, you should be comparing poor versus poor and wealthy versus wealthy.

I said pandering. Think of the British being nice to the Scottish by wearing kilts because of the Clearances. Look it up if you don't know. Your link would make sense if they wore a campbell tartan. I personally had no idea someone equated that cloth to the slave trade, hence my use of the word, 'pander'.

The rest of my statement has to do with dem revisionist history. Obummer was the administration that originally put kids in cages. The media never noticed, as they are part of the democrat party. If you care to actually look it up, black woman aborted more babies than they gave birth to from 2012 through 2016. No wonder they're still only 13% of the population. I guess black lives don't matter to planned parenthood.

I think the issue is your diverting away from anything that resembles the issue at hand. Are there other very real problems that need addressed in poor communities across our country? Sure there is. But let's be honest here. We have enough of a problem in this country taking on one issue at a times much less a multitude of them.

Trying to muddy the waters with other issues won't solve the current one. Why can't people simply get on board with solving this one then moving down the list to the second one? If history has taught us anything it's that we don't multitask so well.

We have seen administrations pander to white supremacists. We've seen them pander to corporations. We've seen the pander to the wealthy. Now suddenly you look at pandering as a bad thing? I wonder why you suddenly have in issue with that?

I've never actually considered equality as pandering. But to each their own.

If that's the case, and we are only tackling one problem at a time, then what does tearing down statues and re-naming buildings have anything to do with solving the problem of police brutality?

You must be mistaken. They aren't being taken down. They are falling much harder than they're being pushed. They actually trip and fall. They are actually provocateurs and this could just be a setup.

That was only the Jussie Smollett statue

According to some it happens to 75 year old men too.

Just sayin'.

Fixed it for you.

Awe.... Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Look at it this way then. What have the democrats done for black people, other than make futile gestures for votes? Buying a gross of kinte cloths and kneeling does nothing. Giving them cap housing in cap neighbohoods with cap schools does nothing. All of their failed promises have done nothing.

An opportunity for decent jobs would do so much more than any of these failures.

There are refugees from all over the world that can come to America and make it in the land of opportunity,

I'll start with the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 and we can work our way up from there.

What is the crime rate among Native Americans.

Google can be your friend.

Try, Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's not an amendment. Google could be your friend too.

It was passed by 80%R 61%d in the house, and 82%R and 69%d in the senate. As it was filibustered by a group called the "southern bloc", which costed of 18d and 1r senator. I still don't see how it's a dem achievement.

You do know about Dixiecrats, right?

The Democratic Party became much more progressive on racial issues during the 1900s and mainly Dixiecrats rallied around all these things you keep going off about.

Those Dixiecrats? They ended up joining the republicans after this, and these Dixiecrats ended up being part of Regans plan to win the presidency.

You really need to learn more about history and current events. This is almost as bad as your no-go zone stuff.

So, for how many years have the dems been 'for' blacks, and how has that worked?

As Charles Barkley said "Dems talk to us once every 4 years."

The real question is, do you know about the dixiecrats? Please read the entire article. You might realize you've been pushing another democrat fable as fact.



URBAN LEGENDS: THE DIXIECRATS AND THE GOP

Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have led astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page).

According to Page’s reconstruction of history, Goldwater votes against the 1964 Civil rights act; and it takes moderate Republicans, led by Everett Dirksen, to ensure that the act becomes law over the obstruction of the Southern segregationists. What Page fails to mention, is that Goldwater and other conservatives supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil rights acts. He then goes on to say, “…many of those same conservative southern Democrats turned Republican. They helped form the core of the historic “Southern strategy,” using racial resentments and states’ rights arguments to rebuild the conservative movement after Goldwater’s resounding defeat.” Unfortunately for Page, the historical record and pure logic don’t bear out this assumption.

The Dixiecrats

During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948, a number of disgruntled southern segregationist Democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors’ ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]




Notably, this stated aim is apparent in the third plank of the Dixiecrat’s platform which states, “We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.”[3]

What is, even more, telling, and speaks directly to the incredulous nature of this urban legend, is the fact that the Dixiecrats rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception (see GOP party platform here). What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights (see Democrat Party Platform here). The ‘totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government”, according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government’s enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/latest-news/history/urban-legends-the-dixiecrats-and-the-gop/

These people aren’t historians.


Nice try.

You're the one with the claim they all joined the Republican party. Where's your proof?

Some more lists for you.

capitalism and economic success. In other words, he went after the Peripheral South’s nonracist, upwardly mobile voters, leaving the Deep South racists to the Democratic Party. And sure enough, in 1968 Nixon won Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida in the Peripheral South and the entire Deep South went to the racist Dixiecrat George Wallace.

What happened to all those racist Dixiecrats that, according to the progressive narrative, all picked up their tents and moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party? Actually, they exist only in the progressive imagination. This is the world not as it is but as progressives wish it to be. Of all the Dixiecrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948, of all the bigots and segregationists who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I count just two—one in the Senate and one in the House—who switched from Democrat to Republican.

In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels.

The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections. Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie.

The Dixiecrats remained in the Democratic Party for years, in some cases decades. Not once did the Democrats repudiate them or attempt to push them out. Segregationists like Richard Russell and William Fulbright were lionized in their party throughout their lifetimes, as of course was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010 and was eulogized by leading Democrats and the progressive media.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/29/the-switch-that-never-happened-how-the-south-really-went-gop/

Just like the nazis, if you repeat a lie long enough, it will become the truth. Part of the democrat mantra.

You didn't read the lists, did you? Which of these men switched parties?

In the Senate, that solitary figure was Strom Thurmond. In the House, Albert Watson. The constellation of racist Dixiecrats includes Senators William Murray, Thomas P. Gore, Spessard Holland, Sam Ervin, Russell Long, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Olin Johnston, Lister Hill, John C. Stennis, John Sparkman, John McClellan, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Herbert Walters, Harry F. Byrd, George Smathers, Everett Jordan, Allen Ellender, A. Willis Robertson, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, Herbert Walters, W. Kerr Scott, and Marion Price Daniels.

The list of Dixiecrat governors includes William H. Murray, Frank Dixon, Fielding Wright, and Benjamin Laney. I don’t have space to include the list of Dixiecrat congressmen and other officials. Suffice to say it is a long list. And from this entire list we count only two defections. Thus the progressive conventional wisdom that the racist Dixiecrats became Republicans is exposed as a big lie.

idk but I think Black America has damn sure taken notice of Trump during all of this protesting, not to mention the bigoted crap he's said and done before this. Since Trump represents the GOP, according to him he is the GOP, then I think it's safe to say the GOP lost some votes over this. A lot of votes.

What the dems did way back when probably doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to the young black people protesting in the streets. Especially when Trump has made it clear he wants them silenced.

What may be and what should be are distinctly splitting IMO. A bunch of what is being "debated" by "expert" panels of talking heads and self-declared scholars have worn me down. Even in the heyday of protest there was a moral compass which found some moral ground and things were known naturally by both sides. More nonsense and noise.

Deplorable.

You mean the 'racist' that created the circumstances to bring about the lowest black unemployment in the history of the country? The 'racist' who pushed for $250m to HBCUs? That's a really strange racist.

I wouldn't call Obama racist. But if you mean Trump not messing up the economy Obama left and actually convincing people it was good again starting day one when he had done nothing, then yes, that racist.

Good to know you see the world at right angles to reality.

Says the guy who believes that islamic sharia law no-go zones exist in the UK.

Still can't answer the question on dixiecrats, huh?

Give me a bit. I've been painting all day today. I've got sources but I need to dig.

I'll be back.

He still hasn't answered the question on why a black person is allowed to add to 'black lives matter', yet other's aren't allowed to.

Well since y'all turned this political and the thread has gone to hell I got a few questions for everybody.

What should a cop do if they pull over driver for speeding/weaving/running a red light or stop sign, and the person fails to obey them. Argues with them, screams at them, won't produce their drivers license or insurance card?

Because there are multiple generations of racist parents in the world. It’s passed down and taught in families as a birthright.

Until a whole generation of humans reject their parents teachings of negative and violent behavior towards other races it won’t be going away anytime soon.