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

MOMof3
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Of course there are racists and arses everywhere. Why are you trying so hard to defend the Republican party then? The Black community wanted equality, voting rights, and jobs. I don't think it mattered which party or what the motivation. Too bad the Republicans missed being on the right side of history on that one.

Because they get a bad and at times underserved rap. I defend the underdog. lol I am not a republican and actually in the past 10 years have not thought much of them at all. Hypocrites. They owned congress and the presidency a few years back and did NOTHING to reduce the size of govt. That is supposed to be a major plank in their platform.... duh.

But in the civil rights area in the 60s, everyone lumps them together as racists. Even now they are "the racist party" and I cry BS on that. Anyone who says that is performing the equivalent of making a racist statement themselves.

80+% of them voted FOR the civil rights act in 64 .. A much higher percentage than democrats who voted for civil rights. Even though the democrats owned congress that year, they could not pass the Act without significant help from the Repubs.

Gryphon66

spirited75
reply to post by asyourworldburned

 

come out from your moms basement in her motel.
the sun is shining. liberal/progressive is nothing more than
atheistic socialism.

See Bracken, ^ case in point.

What? I didn't see nuttin!

LOL

reply to post by bbracken677


Heh. "I know nothink! Nothink!"

I wasn't as sure of my American political history before this thread as I am now, and I'm always grateful to learn.

Here's the thing. Yes, the Democratic Party of 1860 was certainly the locus of slavery supporters. Not every Democrat did, but, in those days, remember that the South was more than half of the States. Slavery was the fundamental focus of the perennial American question: should the National Government have priority over the States' governments. Washington even brought up this issue in his final address.

His contention was that the "United" States would only retain a standing in the world at large by standing Together.

Almost every absolute statement is fallacious. When we speak of groups ... Republicans, Democrats, gays and lesbians, Christians ... it is far too easy to use collective language, and to damn the many by the actions of a few.

The Republicans made a shift in 1964 AFTER the Civil Rights Act was passed. The Conservatives in the party started their move for dominance. That was the last year they were defeated SOUNDLY, because the vibrantly racial nature of the 1964 Republican National Convention clearly demonstrated to some that there was a strong and powerful undercurrent in this country that could be tapped. A Black reporter attending the Convention was openly jeered by the Goldwater delegates. Dr. King made his statement that I quoted earlier, that he could no longer support in any way the position of the Republican party.

There was a shift in 1964. There were (some might be surprised to know) actually liberals and moderates in the Republican party in those days. Some of those folks, over the next 20 years or so, gravitated to the Democrats.

And what of those Southern Democrats that opposed the Civil Rights Act?

By 1980, the entire historical "Deep South" was voting Republican.

I'm from Atlanta Georgia. I've lived here all my 47 years. While it is not absolutely true in every case or in every person, I can tell you that even in 2014, there remain strong racial elements in the "Conservatism" of the folks I see all around me here, coupled with the old "States Rights" concerns, mated with Mr. Reagan's religious right "coalition."

Political racism is a regional issue. I contend that it is now the albatross around the neck of the Republicans in the same way it used to be for the Democrats.

reply to post by Gryphon66


If you want to be even more enlightened on the nations history,
and how the framers of the constitution truly planned for the
complete abolition of slavery, the suppossedly racist pig founders
of America, yes planned for the complete abolition of slavery
then google "Coopers Union Speech pdf" by Abraham Lincoln.

spirited75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

If you want to be even more enlightened on the nations history,
and how the framers of the constitution truly planned for the
complete abolition of slavery, the suppossedly racist pig founders
of America, yes planned for the complete abolition of slavery
then google "Coopers Union Speech pdf" by Abraham Lincoln.

Slavery is INCORPORATED into the Constitution; while you're Googling try "Three Fifths Compromise" and get back to me.

No one here has referred to the Framers as "racist pig farmers" so I have no idea to whom you're addressing that tidbit.

You do realize I hope that Abraham Lincoln lived about 80 years after the Framers, right?

The Coopers Union speech is a great one indeed, perhaps Lincoln's best long speech.

Here's one of my favorite lines which he addressed to the South's screeching about Federal overreach and States Rights:

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

I can't think of anything better to say to the right-wingers of today, personally.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I am well versed in "The Great Compromise",
not erroneously called the Three fifth's compromise.

Here's one of my favorite lines which he addressed to
the South's screeching about Federal overreach and States Rights:




Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy
the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and
enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in
dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.


I can't think of anything better to say to the right-wingers
of today, personally.

Again, since this is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln, it is a
disingenuous to represent this as a PERSONAL cogitation.



More butchery of written word.

You quoted me as saying "racist pig farmers"
I said racist pig founders.
plus i used the word framers in a preceeding sentence.

you must be dyslexic,
we could use your skill in
the progressive interpertation
of the constitution, bill of rights,
and declaration of independence.

either dyslexic or so emotionally passionate
to the point of HYSTERIA about the subject.

histrionic personality disorders usually were more
prevalent in women.

spirited75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

I am well versed in "The Great Compromise",
not erroneously called the Three fifth's compromise.

Here's one of my favorite lines which he addressed to
the South's screeching about Federal overreach and States Rights:




Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy
the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and
enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in
dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.


I can't think of anything better to say to the right-wingers
of today, personally.

Again, since this is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln, it is a
disingenuous to represent this as a PERSONAL cogitation.



More butchery of written word.

You quoted me as saying "racist pig farmers"
I said racist pig founders.
plus i used the word framers in a preceeding sentence.

you must be dyslexic,
we could use your skill in
the progressive interpertation
of the constitution, bill of rights,
and declaration of independence.

either dyslexic or so emotionally passionate
to the point of HYSTERIA about the subject.

histrionic personality disorders usually were more
prevalent in women.

edit on 17-2-2014 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, it's obvious that I'm hysterical ... and by the way, thanks for flying your sexist flag for all to see. Really?

If you think your post is some kind of response to me, it isn't.

You made a claim that Lincoln's Cooper Union speech proved something in regard to our current topic.

I demonstrated in Lincoln's words that it did indeed, just not the one I think you may be trying to make.

(It's really fairly unclear what you're trying to get across, if you don't mind my saying so bluntly.)

Why don't you lay off trying to insult me and make an argument? What is it you believe about the topic at hand?

reply to post by Gryphon66


LOL i made a comment about past history of HPD diagnoses and you label it/me as sexist.

Now that is hysterical. LOLOLOLOLOLO

spirited75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

LOL i made a comment about past history of HPD diagnoses and you label it/me as sexist.

Now that is hysterical. LOLOLOLOLOLO

Because you're obviously not aware that HPD has different axes of diagnosis, and that men are as subject to the disorder as women. Further the diagnostic criteria has been recognized for years to unfairly assign "seductive" behaviors to women because of gender roles that make it "okay" for men to be sexually aggressive but not women.

So, yes, in the apparent lack of information your post displayed, I think it's very reasonable to refer to your position as sexist.

Next?

reply to post by QueenofSpades


Your synopsis is utter nonsense.

Black people became Democrats ONLY because they were the ones in the 60’s to vote for policies that enhanced the rights of black people and further that is why the south went to the GOP from being democrats.

Lyndon Johnson predicted that after his civil rights bills passed the dems would lose the south and that is just what happened.

The small flimsy great society programs they did in the 60’s and 70’s were not even remotely enough to affect the black community in the macrocosm.

The “liberalism” and “feminism” you’re talking about was a western secular movement that affected the whole western world not just black people.

Since because of Jim Crow racism black people were just poorer than whites overall and that is the reason for the cultural diseases that affected the black community--it's about racism, modernity, poverty, and secularism

It’s now poisoning the white community of wealth as it poisoned earlier the black community, just look at the statistics now about White out of wedlock births, white crime, white drug addiction.

It just took longer to affect the much wealthier white community

But like Malcolm X said

"The chickens come home to roost"

reply to post by Gryphon66


Slavery incorporated into the Constitution? 3/5 clause suggests Right to Slavery?

No.

To uncover another liberal myth about the 3/5 clause meaning a right to slavery:

The 3/5 clause meant that since slave owners didn't consider their slaves as persons, only property, they would not have the right to COUNT them for 100% a vote; only 3/5.

The 3/5ths clause was put in the Constitution not to let everyone know that the slaves were not really human, but because if they were put in as 100% human, slavery would have been a lot harder to get rid of. That is the reason the founding fathers put that in the Constitution, to help get rid of slavery.

reply to post by Willtell


While I cannot make some of the connections from the OP, I would also have to say your post is most assuredly revisionist history as can only be viewed by someone who didnt live that period.

I doubt that anyone who actually researched "the great society" efforts (welfare in particular) could argue effectively that welfare did not hurt more than it helped. Jobs programs, anti-discrimination laws were much more effective.

Regarding the Dems were the only ones voting for civil rights? I guess that excludes the over 80% of Repubs that voted FOR the Civil Rights Act...a percentage that overshadowed the Dems voting for it. The Act would not have passed were it not for the Repub votes even though Dems owned both houses. You can, however, make a more accurate argument regarding the regional biases at the time.

I am not sure how you can refer to 127 billion dollars spent on social welfare in 1969 as meager....This represented an astounding 14% of the GDP for 1969. Flimsy? Really? More like misguided. Teach a man to fish...

With regards to Jim Crow racism: I lived in MS from 1976 to 2005...I can personally attest to some of the issues facing blacks in the 70s...by the late 90s virtually all those problems were gone. The percentage of racists in the white community had shrunk tremendously in the larger cities in MS with the main areas holding out being extremely backward rural areas. So I must ask this question: If racism is what was holding blacks back, what is the excuse these days?

Stopping right here, since I can go on and on. Since it is clear that your post is full of perceptions rather than historical truth. I am not going to say you post is wholly in error at all. A large part of it is, however, and it hangs mainly with perceptions.

Willtell
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

Your synopsis is utter nonsense.

Black people became Democrats ONLY because they were the ones in the 60’s to vote for policies that enhanced the rights of black people and further that is why the south went to the GOP from being democrats.

Lyndon Johnson predicted that after his civil rights bills passed the dems would lose the south and that is just what happened.

The small flimsy great society programs they did in the 60’s and 70’s were not even remotely enough to affect the black community in the macrocosm.

The “liberalism” and “feminism” you’re talking about was a western secular movement that affected the whole western world not just black people.

Since because of Jim Crow racism black people were just poorer than whites overall and that is the reason for the cultural diseases that affected the black community--it's about racism, modernity, poverty, and secularism

It’s now poisoning the white community of wealth as it poisoned earlier the black community, just look at the statistics now about White out of wedlock births, white crime, white drug addiction.

It just took longer to affect the much wealthier white community

But like Malcolm X said

"The chickens come home to roost"

Let me show you flaws in your statement:

Why would the democratic party, the party who:

instituted slavery. Jom Crow, the KKK, and anti-integration policies

ALL OF A SUDDEN start to create a policy to help blacks?

Yet, you would have others believe that the Republican party, the party who:

outlawed slavery, ended Jim Crow, banned the KKK, and instituted numerous legistlation to advance blacks

ALL OF A SUDDEN dislike them?

That's that old "party-switch' mythology....

Also, the liberal policies that I mentioned in the OP are absolutely connected to the demise of the black and any other liberal-adopting community, not just the western culture as a whole, because you still have conservative citizens.

My initial point was that blacks had long been conservative, and thats when blacks were highly educated, controlled the income in their own communities, lead the nation in married couples, and maintained 2 paren households.

Prove otherwise.

reply to post by bbracken677


So the Liberals who controlled Detroit for the 30 years or so just turned out to be incompetent civil servants? Even if this is largely the case, when does incompetence become negligence? Or how long can a party go on pretending their policies actually work? Why continue claiming your out to help people when your policy shows the opposite. Even worse is repeating the same policies that failed because the rhetoric is a proven method of getting votes. So in the end it's the rhetoric that has been proven to work. So the liberals who continue these policies are either the Dumbest people to ever walk the earth, or the smartest people who mastered the art of "Getting Out the Vote", in their favor of course. Both conclusions should be stamped out ASAP. Or at least test the waters of any party or independent that is saying something else.

reply to post by luciddream


You have to stop voting for democrats and republicans.

Even if you like them.

Stop supporting failure. Vote for anyone other than them to send a message and failure is not acceptable in policy making.

Oh and if you don't support an extremely minimalist state(or even no state) your not a libertarian.

Your just another big state conservative.

I agree that, perhaps some liberal policies, have a detrimental impact on poverty. I think it's a good discussion to have on what policies hurt and what policies help. Anyone with half a brain can see that some "conservative' and some "liberal' policies have merit. It's only our inane political game here in the states that has it where you can't pick the best policies from both sides. That would be blasphemy to admit that a democratic policy was good, if you were a republican! Oh the horror.

However, I disagree with lumping feminism into this debate. Feminism as it relates to women's rights and making women equal to men is always the right thing to do. All men and all women were created equal.

The scam is not voting for Democrats of GOP; the scam is that people don’t realize one should vote on issues not attitudes and prejudices.

If people voted on issues and were intelligent, something they don’t do and aren’t, in this country they would vote on the issue of totally ceasing the bribing of politicians by lobbyists and the control of the fed and banks and that alone would assist towards getting the country back.

People are deceived by the polarity of right/ left demagoguery and should vote ISSUES not on the hatred of each other over the arguments as they do now.