Liberal Policies, Feminism, and their Destruction of the Black Community

QueenofSpades


History of Politics show that the Republican Party, with strong opposition from the Democratic Party:

Were formed from an organization of Abolishionists
Fought to end the status quo of slavery
Enacted the Emancipation Proclamation/ ended slavery
Enacted 13th, 14h, and 15th Amendments which extended rights to former slaves and gave blacks the new Right to Vote
Fought to end Jim Crow
Banned the KKK (formed by the Democratic Party as a terrorist group toward Republicans, mainly black Republicans)
Voted to enact 1964 Civil Rights
Ended segregation and supported Brown v Board of Education

Stop me once I get close showing their lack of care for blacks.....

You are completely ignoring the regional aspects of all of these points.

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

www.theguardian.com...

luciddream
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

To me, libertarians, or "democrats-in-denial" ...

is the opposite for me, 90% of the Libertarians i met are republicans in denial. Must suck for them to be in the centre.

That is because Libertarians believe in smaller government and equality for all. Which you'll notice is a Republican ideal mixed with a Democratic ideal. So Democrats view us as Republicans in denial and Republicans (like the op) view us as Democrats in denial. Ya'll are both wrong though and it is actually insulting to say either description. Again political ideology isn't a black or white concept and to say that Libertarians are Democrats in denial or Republicans in denial reinforces this misconception.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


We both agree that Conservatives have a restricted interpretation of the constitution, and liberals have a broad interpratation, no?

So lets end that with that.

Back to the main argument.....

During reconstruction, blacks, because they were a part of the Republican party, developed a sense of conservative ideologies and morals. As the era most closest to slavery, blacks were owning businesses, becoming college education, and even being voted into Congress.

Blacks lead the nation in marriage and having 2 parent households.

One of my main arguments was that slavery did not destroy the black family, as liberals often purport.

If this was true, how is it that the dysfunction behavior and broken up families leaped frogged the 60+ years after slavery ended and landed in our modern day?

The rise of single parent homes (which breed crime and poverty) and lowered work ethcis are the results of the migration to the DNC.

State otherwise.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


Your problem is that you are attributing this issue to a political party. You should read Kaylaluv's post that describes the issue as regional. The south was traditionally racist (holdover from being bitter about losing slavery thus crashing their economy) and the north wasn't. Sure a large portion of the Republican and Democrat party bases were (and still are) divided regionally, but that wasn't the cause of the schism like it is today. Your problem is that you are trying to use modern political ideology to find a cause for the issues of the black population. It isn't a political issue though, but a social one. When speaking about the issues of the black population in America, you need to drop the words, "Republican, Democrat, or any political party" from you lexicon. They aren't the issue and just a distraction.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address my other points that I made in the thread about feminism, abortion, drugs and all the other things that you think are holding the black community back. Basically I want you to stop talking about political parties.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Your request to me to 'stop talking about political parties' is moot, because politics is still the root.

Values are backed and supported by political parties or not.

The thread title includes"liberal policies", so we will very muc be discussing politics.

Lastly, southern racism derrived from the fact that it was the South, mind you the Democratic South, that viewed blacks as property.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Even though you did absolutely nothing to deconstrut my argument, I'll respond to a few of your points:

Why bother? You're already not responding to what I said here. I specifically said "I'm NOT going to deconstruct your argument." Doesn't bode well.

1. I never 'implied' that blacks, during Reconstruction, mimicked the lifestyles and morals of their white neighbors. They never 'adopted' any culture's ways, as this being pro-education, having 2 parents in the home, and a good work ethic were THEIR OWN ways.

Well, yeah, you kinda did. You implied that American Blacks were released from the plantations, bought houses in town, and started working hard to send their kids to college. That's just not the way it happened, or more specifically that's not the way it was ALLOWED to happen.

2. You actually reinforced that the Republican Party worked hard to change the status quo of the day, which was slavery. The Democratic party fought hard to preserve it. How do you not understand which party worked toward the betterment for blacks?

If you really understand any history, you know that this was clearly a regional phenomenon rather than a Republican vs. Democratic one. Did you see anything in the Republican Platform which specifically addressed helping Black Americans? No. You see an opposition to Slavery, which was a States Rights issue, which was the real driving point of the Civil War.

3. Both Civil Rights Acts of 1864 and 1964 were gained by votes of Republican Congress members, even though we had a Democratic president in the office. Check your histry and see how an overwhelmng majority of Democrats fought AGAInST civil rights, both times.

There was no Civil Rights Act of 1864. (It was 1866.) Again you're mischaracterizing the reality of the situation. The opposition to Civil Rights came from the Southern States just as it does today. And you might also notice, that the greatest predominance of "Red" on the map today is in the Southern States. The Republican Party of 1866 is not the Republican Party of 2014. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed by President Kennedy (a DEMOCRAT) introduced to the Floor by a DEMOCRAT (Emanuel Celler) was driven through the Congress by a DEMOCRAT (Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy's assassination) etc. etc. etc.

You're either mistaken about large chunks of history, or you're intentionally misrepresenting them.

4. Lastly, the DNC remains the same. The party of dependence, especially black dependence. During slavery, the DNC enacted policies to keep blacks dependent- on their slave masters, and today, their policies keep blacks dependent on government.

Different Day, Same Agenda.

Given what we've seen in just this short analysis of the integrity of your commentary, your contentions are pure partisan malarky. The "DNC" is the Democratic National Convention ... this exists to select candidates for President every four years and states a platform. The "DNC" doesn't set policy, doesn't enact legislation, etc. etc.

You've merely shown that you're willing to misrepresent or subject to misunderstanding the facts repeatedly.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Your request to me to 'stop talking about political parties' is moot, because politics is still the root.

Values are backed and supported by political parties or not.

The thread title includes"liberal policies", so we will very muc be discussing politics.

Lastly, southern racism derrived from the fact that it was the South, mind you the Democratic South, that viewed blacks as property.

And those same southern democrats switched over to the Republican party when they realized that the party ideologies were changing, and now the GOP was more along their lines of thinking. The 'ole party switcheroo. It happened, as much as you don't want to believe it. The Republican party of today is now like what the Democratic party was before civil rights. And the Democratic party is now very similar to what the Republican party used to be before the civil war.

kaylaluv

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Your request to me to 'stop talking about political parties' is moot, because politics is still the root.

Values are backed and supported by political parties or not.

The thread title includes"liberal policies", so we will very muc be discussing politics.

Lastly, southern racism derrived from the fact that it was the South, mind you the Democratic South, that viewed blacks as property.

And those same southern democrats switched over to the Republican party when they realized that the party ideologies were changing, and now the GOP was more along their lines of thinking. The 'ole party switcheroo. It happened, as much as you don't want to believe it. The Republican party of today is now like what the Democratic party was before civil rights. And the Democratic party is now very similar to what the Republican party used to be before the civil war.

Yeah Kayla, but those are FACTS that don't fit the dialogue that OP is trying to enact.

Star for you, well stated.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Your request to me to 'stop talking about political parties' is moot, because politics is still the root.

Values are backed and supported by political parties or not.

The thread title includes"liberal policies", so we will very muc be discussing politics.

Lastly, southern racism derrived from the fact that it was the South, mind you the Democratic South, that viewed blacks as property.

Sigh... You keep trying to make this into a partisan issue and it really isn't. Who cares what your thread title says? First off, it's wrong, not to mention I read articles all the time from professional journalists where the title has little to do with the content. Second off, your actual thread content addresses more than just political parties since you went on a HUGE tangent about how feminism is destroying the black community as well as moral issues like drugs, abortion, and homosexuality (still wondering about that one) being responsible as well. Yet you seem to have forgotten about this angle of your thread in lieu of trying to vehemently show that the Republican party isn't racist.

I'm starting to think that you made this thread to bash on Democrats while cleverly trying to conceal it as a thread about institutional racism. Every responder in this thread is trying to move you away from the Republican vs. Democrat angle (since it is irrelevant), yet you keep addressing it and trying to steer the conversation back towards it.

For the second time: PLEASE ADDRESS THE NON-PARTISAN POINTS I MADE WITH MY INITIAL RESPONSE TO YOU

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Institutional racism? I never uttered those words. I'm conservative, and that's a liberal ideology that I don't beleive in.

I understand that posters here would love for me to not discuss the parties, but it is in the title of the thread; thus it is very relevant. If they want to steer from that, fine. But they will not be hi-jacking my conversation topic.

Again, politics, more specific the adaptation of liberal policies of blacks , is what is evident that has lead to the demise of marriage and the 2 parent home, and has contributed to the destructive behavior seen in juveniles of single mothers.

THAT is the topic.

I will not be baited into the distraction tactics used.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


Fine then. Then you have to admit that all of this:

And then came feminism.

Feminism refers to the sentiment that white women felt as they regarded their men (husbands, etc.) as becoming more successful than them with unequal pay. They felt “inferior’ to the white male because they were not able to hold all of the same job positions and even some political statuses as men, and felt a political and social movement was in order to gain this equal footing. Black women, striving to be like their white counterparts, were essentially 'duped' into believing that their men were controlling them and thus joined this movement....

Sadly, it was not intended for them.

Even after slavery, but before feminism and welfare, families were intact with both the father & mother to raise their children who all worked together to form a healthy team. Men went out to work and provided for the rest of the members, while women stayed home and nurtured babies, cleaned the home, and prepared the meals while providing a natural balance to the flow of a family. Instead, with the rise of feminism, women compete against men for jobs and because of this, they are expected to work 40 or more hours per week, leaving babies and young children needing to be reared by nannies or daycare centers, rarely-cleaned homes, and no one home to prepare the meals. Teamwork died. When the woman came home from work, no one was there to help her with the children, and there was usually no time to prepare a good hearty meal. McDonald’s soon became the meal of the day.

Women, before feminism, relied on traditional values and beliefs. Children did not attend daycares very young, to allow their mothers leave their homes and be part of a workforce. Naturally, that was a man’s job. They understood that men needed to be supported and needed; essentially, that was the "woman’s job", so-to-speak. They supported their men not just sexually, but emotionally. Feminism came in and made the man feel weak, and unwanted. How can he go out into the world and be motivated to provide if he doesn’t feel needed at all? Its’ natural for him to feel needed. This duo is the essence of a natural balance.

Feminism was also stated to help usher in the overgrowth of the welfare state.

According to liberals and feminists, the fundamental reasoning for poverty was that it was simply an economic problem. They assumed that poverty victims simply lacked the resources of wealth in the form of capital. Supply them with long term funding, and poverty magically disappears”...

The fact is that poverty is more of a mental state than it is a physical state. It entails a lack of motivation, irresponsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, and violence. These are all results from a dysfunctioning, single-parent household.

Majority of juvenile delinquent teens, and even imprisoned adults come out of single parent homes. Many of these children grow up never knowing their natural fathers. The Father taught the boys respect, responsibility, and most importantly, manhood. Without this, men tend to become effeminate, that is, to carry traits of a woman. They are dramatic, obsess over fashion, can't change oil in a car, live off of their "baby momma's", and tend to argue a lot because they are not equipped to resolve conflict, something learned through manhood.

How did this happen?

Feminism came in and urged women to be ‘sexually liberated’. In other words, be promiscuous because its ‘ok’. This naturally lead to the births of many out-of-wedlocked children. You add that to the welfare programs and at their reward and incentive system. More benefits are allotted to women with multiple children out-of-wedlock.

Liberal policies in general played a huge role in the destruction of the strong, nuclear family, they all agreed. Policies such as legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and abortion were all very detrimental to not only a healthy family, buy a healthy nation. Legalizing drugs sounds to me like an ‘I –can-do-whatever-I want-as long-as it-doesn’t- hurt-anyone childlike attitude”. These proponents aren't realizing that with the freedom of rampant drug use, more irresponsible behavior is bound to follow. More crime, not less crime, as the supporters of this movement would like to argue, because people will not be thinking properly. Reasoning skills are affected under the influence of drugs.

What about abortion?

This is not ‘mistake that just happens’ as its supporters proclaim. The bill allowing abortion, resulting from the 1970’s Supreme Court Case, stands as if it honors women the ‘freedom’ to do with her body as she pleases. However, she is not considering that in doing so, she has now infringed on the body of someone else; the body, or life, of the unborn. Not to mention the cost to tax payers for coverage of these medical expenses for the procedure, as usually these women are already on some form of assistance.

Abortion should not be a "quick fix"...The irresponsible behavior should be stopped before you get to the point of having to ‘fix it’ by taking a life.

Is off topic.

Or prove me wrong and actually address the points I made about that part of your OP, like I've now asked for the third time. Otherwise you are just a partisan troll.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Oh contraire mon frere....

The DNC and the RNC are where the party platforms are established.

Each term, the goal of the DNC or RNC is to come together on a decison for their presidential candidate AS WELL as the party platform.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Oh contraire mon frere....

The DNC and the RNC are where the party platforms are established.

Each term, the goal of the DNC or RNC is to come together on a decison for their presidential candidate AS WELL as the party platform.

You just don't read other's posts, do you?

I clearly stated that the "party platform" is introduced at the Convention(s).

Here's the thing though: the party platform does not pass laws, dictate policy, direct judicial decisions, or anything else.

It's a political document.

Much like your OP ...

reply to post by Gryphon66

The Republican Party of 1866 is not the Republican Party of 2014. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed by President Kennedy (a DEMOCRAT) introduced to the Floor by a DEMOCRAT (Emanuel Celler) was driven through the Congress by a DEMOCRAT (Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy's assassination) etc. etc. etc.

Perfect, i been trying to say this but i just didn't have all the information.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


(sigh....)

My points all conclude and support my premise, that feminism and other liberal policies lead to family destruction.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

(sigh....)

My points all conclude and support my premise, that feminism and other liberal policies lead to family destruction.

Maybe in your head, though I find it funny how you managed to talk about those points (rather briefly though) while STILL not addressing my points. Here I'll help you out since you refuse to actually look them up:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There a quick and easy link for you to go back and read my points and respond to them instead of continually trolling me. I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you will eventually provide a real argument to my points, but everything you post is making me think you are a troll.

You got so offended at posters like gryphon for not addressing the points in your OP, but when I do, you not only ignore the majority of what I post (only to focus on the least important parts), but actively ignore any requests to address them.

History will verify which party strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. Its the same party that gave the infamous Filibuster in hopes to block it.

The Democratic Party.

ketsuko
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, but I do hope you brought asbestos underwear.

Thank you for your honest response.

I understand that many on this thread will not like what is said in the OP, especially if they find themselves in support of the party being mentioned. However painful, they cannot deconstruct the argument.

This is why I see responses that are attempts to derail or hijack the topic.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

(sigh....)

My points all conclude and support my premise, that feminism and other liberal policies lead to family destruction.

If I used your style of logic, I could prove that Santa and the tooth fairy killed JFK. The democratic party of old became the Republicans of today.

btw most Libertarians [myself included] are Republicans ashamed of what the GOP has become.