It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Lives Don't Matter...

page: 9
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Forgot to mention this one... beautiful sister who was an up and coming model shot and killed in a drive by.

Chicago Model Killed

There will be some outrage for a day or so then they will be forgotten... but let a white cop rough up a brother and you wont't hear the end of it.




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope, voting for Democrats does not equate to brainwashing. I do know that there's a current trend in Conservative circles to try to sell this "Democrats are hurting Blacks" meme, but it's mostly baseless political rhetoric.

If you don't realize that the "Democrats doing all the racist stuff" are now Republicans (i.e. the Deep South) then I submit that you have been brainwashed. Look up "Dixiecrats." Look up "The Southern Strategy." Look at the candidacy of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

Well, I did ask you and you answered, can't fault you there.

Your true belief is that Democrats are magicians and Blacks are too gullible to notice.

You sound like you were very lucky to grow up in a home that shielded you from a lot of the realities your brothers and sisters face.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope, voting for Democrats does not equate to brainwashing. I do know that there's a current trend in Conservative circles to try to sell this "Democrats are hurting Blacks" meme, but it's mostly baseless political rhetoric.

If you don't realize that the "Democrats doing all the racist stuff" are now Republicans (i.e. the Deep South) then I submit that you have been brainwashed. Look up "Dixiecrats." Look up "The Southern Strategy." Look at the candidacy of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

Well, I did ask you and you answered, can't fault you there.

Your true belief is that Democrats are magicians and Blacks are too gullible to notice.

You sound like you were very lucky to grow up in a home that shielded you from a lot of the realities your brothers and sisters face.

Thanks.


You mean the Southern strategy that allowed Robert Byrd, a former klan member to be elected Democrat Speaker of the House in 1988? Stop trying to whitewash the history of the Democrat party with that southern strategy meme.


(post by murphy22 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope. The Southern Strategy applied by Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan that appealed to the disgruntled Dixiecrat Southerners who came over to the Republican party in droves subsequent to the Civil Rights Acts passage in the 60s.

You are the last person to be critical of a "meme" honestly.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
Strom Thurmond
Miles Godwin

What was that about switching parties again? So we are to believe that all the lowly voters switched, but not the political leadership? Just saying... Sure Al Gore, Jr didn't pick up on any of his daddy's beliefs...



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope. The Southern Strategy applied by Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan that appealed to the disgruntled Dixiecrat Southerners who came over to the Republican party in droves subsequent to the Civil Rights Acts passage in the 60s.

You are the last person to be critical of a "meme" honestly.


Southern Strategy Debunked



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Wow, that is an impressive list ...

Benjamin Travis Laney died in 1977, out of politics in 1939(!)
Orval Faubus out of politics in 1967.
George Wallace was an Independent in 1968.
Richard Russell died in 1971.
Lester Maddox was out of politics by 1971.
Al Gore Sr. out of politics by 1971
Bull Connor died in 1973.

Etc. etc. etc.

Well, yes, let's speak of how the people in the States have consistently voted Republican (or for George Wallace) in Presidential elections after 1964 that had voted Democrat before ...

Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
North Carolina
Alabama
Florida
Louisiana

Now that list sounds familiar ... where have we heard those names? Oh yes, the States of the Confederacy.

Which are majority "Red States" again since Reagan?

Georgia? Yep.
MIssissippi? Yep.
Tennessee? Yep.
South Carolina?
North Carolina?
Louisiana?

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.

How about State Leglislatures? Which are Republican?

Let's see is it?

Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
North Carolina
Alabama
Florida
Louisiana

Yep.

How far do you want to take it?
edit on 22Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:46:20 -060015p1020151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Wow, that is an impressive list ...

Benjamin Travis Laney died in 1977, out of politics in 1939(!)
Orval Faubus out of politics in 1967.
George Wallace was an Independent in 1968.
Richard Russell died in 1971.
Lester Maddox was out of politics by 1971.
Al Gore Sr. out of politics by 1971
Bull Connor died in 1973.

Etc. etc. etc.

Well, yes, let's speak of how the people in the States have consistently voted Republican (or for George Wallace) in Presidential elections after 1964 that had voted Democrat before ...

Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
North Carolina
Alabama
Florida
Louisiana

Now that list sounds familiar ... where have we heard those names? Oh yes, the States of the Confederacy.

Which are "Red States" again since Reagan?

Georgia? Yep.
MIssissippi? Yep.
Tennessee? Yep.
South Carolina?
North Carolina?
Louisiana?

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.




Explains the reasons those states shifted to Republican. NY Times an agreeable source?

Mytth of Southern Strategy



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Speaking of myths:

The Myth of the Liberal Dixiecrats



Then, in the 1948 election, Harry Truman ran on a limited civil rights platform which greatly angered the southern conservative Democrats. Truman also issued the executive order to desegregate the military, which further upset the Southern Democrats. Truman was seen as too liberal, which caused them to split from the Democratic Party in 1948 to form the “Dixiecrat” Party to run as a conservative alternative to Truman. By the way, Truman won without them. In fact Southern voters who are registered as Democrats, yet vote mainly Republican, are still referred to as Dixiecrats.


How Democrats and Republicans Switched Sides on Civil Rights



You can’t really look at the history of American politics through the lens of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of today’s parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of North and South, conservative and progressive.


Debunking the Conservative Lie That the Confederacy Wasn’t About Racism and Slavery



... the popular thing for many Republicans to do is claim that the Confederacy wasn’t about fighting for their desire to own other human beings as property – it was just about freedom, states’ rights, and an opposition to the overreaching federal government. Now, for those who like to try to rewrite history in an effort to deny that their roots are tied to one of the most despicable times in our nation’s history, I guess it makes sense to lie to yourself in such a way. As they say, denial is a powerful thing."


Indeed.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Your NYT article is talking about a study that two professors wrote in 2006.

Did you actually read it?

I can see why you're not posting any text from these articles.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
... and even more myths ...

Let's Debunk the Myth of Why Blacks Vote Democratic



This idea that Democrats earn minority votes with “free stuff” is an article of faith in the Republican Party. In 2012, Newt Gingrich said blacks should want paychecks and not food stamps. Rick Santorum said he didn’t want to give black people someone else’s money and that they should earn their own.

And then there was GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney blaming his defeat on President Barack Obama giving “gifts” to blacks.


Let's remember that Edumakated thinks Democrats have magic powers to confound gullible Black America with presents ...

But ... do they?



Is it food stamps? According to the Department of Agriculture, 25.7 percent of food stamp users are black, while 40.2 percent are white. So this isn’t it.

It’s not Medicaid, either. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, 41 percent of non-elderly Medicaid users are white and 21 percent are black.

Since the Affordable Care Act went into effect, more than 16.4 million more Americans have health care. One of those people is one of my closest friends, Chumly, who said Obamacare was a godsend after an injury and job loss. But Chumly is a white Republican, so this can’t be the free stuff.

It has to be Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, which we commonly call welfare. But the benefits are divided roughly evenly between whites, blacks and Hispanics. And the rolls have gone down in the past two decades.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Verbose hate mongering.


If anyone not claiming to be black had written any of this they'd be banned.
And rightly so.


Enjoy the stars and flags from all the confederate throwbacks.
That's where they came from.

Nowhere else.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
... and more debunking ...

Debunking Ben Carson's Anti-Black Racist Lies About American Politics and History



Ben Carson is not alone in his twisted fantasy land. He is joined by other black conservatives — a select group of racial mercenaries who are routinely trotted out on Fox News and elsewhere — who, to great approval from white conservatives, also repeat the same anti-black propaganda.


Now doesn't that sound familiar here ... want to hear something even more familiar?



This twisted interpretation of the political agency and intelligence of black Americans is immensely popular on the White Right. The “Democratic Plantation” lie is rooted in a white supremacist fantasy and “Gone with the Wind”-style fairy tale of happy black slaves singing, dancing, having sex, and being protected by benevolent white masters. This racist fiction ignores how black Americans self-manumitted, fought in the Civil War to free themselves, remade democracy with Reconstruction, and then made the reasoned choice to switch over to the Democratic Party en masse because of the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and then later those of the Johnson and Kennedy administrations.


but wait ... according to some ... Blacks are totally befuddled by politics. Right?

WRONG!



“Even with concerns about coverage of their communities in the news, large majorities of African Americans and Hispanics are avid news consumers and their general news habits are similar to national averages. Substantial numbers of Americans say they watch, read, or hear the news at least once a day (76 percent) and also say they enjoy keeping up with the news a lot or some (88 percent).



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Maybe we should hear from someone who actually knows what he was talking about ...

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

[Notice --- There is quoted racially charged language at this link that may be disturbing to some.]




The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N-, n-, n-.” By 1968 you can’t say “n-”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N-, n-.”


Who was Lee Atwater again?



Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party. During the 1970s and the 1980 election, Atwater rose to prominence in the South Carolina Republican party, active in the campaigns of Governor Carroll Campbell and Senator Strom Thurmond. During his years in South Carolina, Atwater became well known for managing hard-edged campaigns based on emotional wedge issues. He was an adviser to U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee.


Source - Wiki
edit on 23Wed, 04 Nov 2015 23:38:40 -060015p1120151166 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Your NYT article is talking about a study that two professors wrote in 2006.

Did you actually read it?

I can see why you're not posting any text from these articles.


A study which looks at why the voting patterns changed from Democrat to Republican in southern states. Your only beef is that the study was done in 2006 on voting patterns covering the last 40-50 years? Are you serious? The study clearly points out it was because as the southern economy grew, the wealthier suburbanites started voting Republican as they felt Republicans were more in tune with their economic interest, not because they were looking to join an new racist party.

At it's core, the southern strategy doesn't even make any damn sense. So we have two political parties. The Republicans which have been champions of civil rights since the mid 1800s. The party was actually founded by abolitionist. The Democrat party which since the mid 1800s have been staunch racist. All of a sudden, the dixiecrats are going to up and leave their Democrat party to join the Republicans which had been diametrically opposed to everything they stand for?

You claim all the racist Democrats shifted to the Republican party and tried to prove your position by showing the many Southern states started voting republican. I posted that article in response to give you an alternative beyond because "Republicans are racist".

In regards to your welfare statistics, blacks are over represented on the roles as YOUR OWN FREAKING STATS show. We are only 13% of the population, yet make up 25% . Whites are 40% of the welfare rolls but like 65-70% of the population so they are underrepresented.

Do you deny that the black out of wedlock birth rate was around 20% in 1960 but is now approaching 75%? Are you denying that welfare policies from LBJs war on poverty discouraged marriage? If not, how do you explain the exponential increase in out of wedlock birth rate among blacks during this period from 1960 to now?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope. My beef is that you're holding out a single study as unimpeachable truth because it squares with the agenda you're promoting here.

Republicans have been champions of civil rights? In 1868? Yes. After 1968? See Lee Atwater.

I showed you that the States of the Old Confederacy that were "Blue" prior to the Civil Rights Acts are now "Red."

Why don't you quote from the article instead of restating it? Could it be because what the article (and statistics) actually say don't square with your lies?

From the Time article



Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.


and ...



As for the high proportion of black families headed by single women (44%, compared with 13% for whites): many deep sociohistoric reasons could be adduced, but none of them is welfare. A number of respected studies refute the Reagan-era myth that a few hundred a month in welfare payments is a sufficient incentive to chuck one's husband or get pregnant while in high school. If it were, states with relatively high welfare payments -- say, about $500 a month per family -- would have higher rates of out-of-wedlock births than states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which expect a welfare family to get by on $200 a month or less. But this is not the case.


and ...



White folks have been gobbling up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it's worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We receive almost twice as much per capita, for an aggregate advantage to our race of $10 billion a year -- much more than the $3.9 billion advantage African Americans gain from their disproportionate share of welfare. One sad reason: whites live an average of six years longer than African Americans, meaning that young black workers help subsidize a huge and growing "overclass" of white retirees.


I think that wraps up both of your spurious claims in one.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality




There is an awful lot of misinformation and untruth out there about the legacy of the two major political parties and the civil rights movement. Conservatives often like to use slight of hand, insisting that because the early Republican party was stronger in support of civil rights, this means that conservatives have the moral high ground. This is totally untrue.


Wow, that really sounds familiar here, doesn't i?



Republicans – Moderate and Liberal Republicans supported civil rights. The Republicans who supported civil rights in America were not conservatives of the same ilk as George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They were liberals and moderates, people like former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chaffee and former senator governor Nelson Rockefeller.


... did someone mention Bull Connor?



Conservative Democrats opposed civil rights. The Democrats opposed to the civil rights movement weren’t Democrats with the center-left ideology of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They were, in fact, conservatives – especially from the south – with far more in common with Limbaugh, Beck, etc. than any modern mainstream Democrat. When people say that someone like notorious segregationist Bull Connor was a Democrat, they are technically right on the party label, but when it comes to ideology Connor and the rest of those opposed to racial integration were conservatives.


So we should listen to what politicians actually say on the issues?



Conservatives opposed civil rights. At the time of the civil rights movement, outside of the parties, conservatives were opposed to the civil rights movement. Barry Goldwater, a conservative whose brand of politics would soon take over the Republicans in the guise of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, opposed civil rights law. He claimed that he viewed it as a states rights issue, and actually favored equal rights, but the practical effect of his stance would be to allow segregation – in the south “states rights” meant “Jim Crow.” The conservative intellectual movement – William F. Buckley’s National Review, for instance, opposed what they viewed as law-breaking protests by Dr. Martin Luther King.



edit on 0Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:12:00 -060015p1220151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

black lives matter was created in response to numerous police killings not black on black crime. Theres at least 10 groups a city that pursue that issue. Deny ignorance



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Nope. My beef is that you're holding out a single study as unimpeachable truth because it squares with the agenda you're promoting here.

Republicans have been champions of civil rights? In 1868? Yes. After 1968? See Lee Atwater.

I showed you that the States of the Old Confederacy that were "Blue" prior to the Civil Rights Acts are now "Red."

Why don't you quote from the article instead of restating it? Could it be because what the article (and statistics) actually say don't square with your lies?

From the Time article



Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.


and ...



As for the high proportion of black families headed by single women (44%, compared with 13% for whites): many deep sociohistoric reasons could be adduced, but none of them is welfare. A number of respected studies refute the Reagan-era myth that a few hundred a month in welfare payments is a sufficient incentive to chuck one's husband or get pregnant while in high school. If it were, states with relatively high welfare payments -- say, about $500 a month per family -- would have higher rates of out-of-wedlock births than states like Louisiana and Mississippi, which expect a welfare family to get by on $200 a month or less. But this is not the case.


and ...



White folks have been gobbling up the welfare budget while blaming someone else. But it's worse than that. If we look at Social Security, which is another form of welfare, although it is often mistaken for an individual insurance program, then whites are the ones who are crowding the trough. We receive almost twice as much per capita, for an aggregate advantage to our race of $10 billion a year -- much more than the $3.9 billion advantage African Americans gain from their disproportionate share of welfare. One sad reason: whites live an average of six years longer than African Americans, meaning that young black workers help subsidize a huge and growing "overclass" of white retirees.


I think that wraps up both of your spurious claims in one.


Are you too lazy to click on the link or something?



It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.


In regards to your Time article, it tries to conflate the issue of welfare by lumping in social security. This is a common liberal tactic when the numbers don't work in their favor. They try adding in other unrelated categories to massage the statistics.

Your own source basically says single women with children under 18 are more likely to be in poverty and on welfare? Correct? If this is true, please explain how having 3/4s of black children being born to single mothers not a national tragedy? In layman terms, 75% of black kids are behind the 8 ball at birth. Having children out of wedlock has become culturally accepted within the black community. We no longer have marriages with fathers and mothers. We have baby's mamas and baby's daddys.

Since you love to link to everything, go find a study to link to that says raising a child without a father in the home is a good thing or the kids aren't negatively affected by it in some way.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join