@ lasthood,
Cosign 1000.... People playing themselves on a high level thinking that voting for "the lessor of two evils" means anything good to them. New party the only way Bro... The fake left/right paradigm is a scam to distract the fact that they're both owned by the same special interest. People just prefer to get scammed by the person they identify with the most.
Good insight Barn...I hadn't realized all that.
Greg, you already know the system is rigged...rationalizing outcomes based on semantics that would appear to be relevant doesn't work.
Ahh hahhhh....so Loser1stillhere got banned again? LMAO!!! Yo Son, clearly you're not wanted around here. Take a hike Son.
LOL....Loser still thinks that the Democratic party is actually for Black folks. So delusional....I bet when you come on here and people post the view point that both parties are bought and paid for, it just fractures your brain. No body gives a got *** about lunch counters....all that did was placate Blacks for the next 50 years. Do the knowledge of your history, there isn't one real Black leader in the last 100 years that were for the Democratic party.
Did Loser change his name after I body bagged him on the Biblical debate? Hmmmmm....
GreenDozen
"No body gives a got *** about lunch counters....all that did was placate Blacks for the next 50 years.'
So should blacks still be living with Jim Crow laws? Blacks are now placated because we don't have to run from the white man anymore and don't have to worry about being lynched? Every revolution starts with a single act, you should understand that since that is what you preach. The actions at those lunch counters are a huge part of black history.
And of course no black leader in the past 100 years were for the Democrat party since most blacks supported the Republican party... until it was the Democrats who voted for Civil Rights and all the racists switch to the Republicans.
I hear your points Greg, however, separation was much better for Blacks than integration, of which the eradication of such Jim Crow laws ushered in. We didn't need to eat at their counters because we created our own businesses. Blacks were climbing up the food chain much faster as we circulated our money within our own communities. Familiar with Black Wall Street in OK? The Harlem renaissance? I had family members from the early 1900's start their own businesses, and they were successful that eventually White's patron'd them and there was no need to enforce a law. Begging to spend our money in our slave masters' establishments was not the answer. I will recognize that there were some small victories, however, looking at it from a holistic view, we were much better off with segregation.
GreenDozen
I hear ya about the Black Wall Street section in Tulsa. But remember what happened to it? The whites rioted, killed blacks and burned it to the ground. This is why the acts at the lunch counters were so important because whites would never have left blacks become well-off and the government would have been complicit in allowing whites to act against blacks. It's cool your family was able to prosper but every place was not like that. I'm gonna have to disagree with you that blacks were better off during segregation. I think that's your opinion because you didn't live during that era.
Barn
For one, you're wrong as usual, but like to use your Wikipedia sources to make a point that wasn't even the original point. The point was was that President Johnson, a Democrat continued with President Kennedy's work to pass a Civil Rights bill. Not a Republican, but a Democrat.
Now I want you to go back to Wikipedia and tell how many southern Democrats voted for it? And how many Republicans voted for it?
Also, to try and make it seem like Republicans were for Civil Rights for blacks? What was Nixon's Southern Strategy? Don't know? Don't wanna say? Allow me then...
Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was appealing to Democratic whites who were unhappy with desegregation and played on their hatred and fears to when those votes. That is why southern whites are no longer with the Democratic party anymore.
Stop cherry-picking to make your point, and stay off Wikipedia.
@Barn
Source for what? What is easily available public knowledge? Who doesn't know that it was Democratic Presidents who pushed for Civil Rights Act?
Who doesn't know that it caused white to switch to the Republican party?
And who doesn't know that Nixon exploited that with his "Southern Strategy" to get those white votes?
Whoa!!!! FACTS!! This crushes the myth!!
"The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)"
Barn
You want to bring up Byrd huh? At least he stayed with the Democrat party instead of leaving like the real racists who thought blacks were second class citizens. He repented way before he died and said his past actions were wrong. And since I live in California I didn't vote him in, so I can't say if I would have or not.
@Barn
Yet you have not addressed ANYTHING I have said as to why blacks are with the Democratic party. You have percentage numbers, for your Wikipedia proof, what do they mean? You are being too literal. You need to stop that. You know Civil Rights Act was a Democratic bill and no matter what Wiki "proof" you come up with doesn't change that. And you also know that the Republican party used racial hatred to get whites to vote for Nixon. And for that reason is why blacks won't vote for Republicans and you know it. So stop with trying to change the issue.
GreenDozen
Of course it needed both parties to pass and as I stated, most blacks were Republican at the time, but it WAS the Democratic party who pushed it, it was Democratic Presidents who forced the vote on it, and Democratic congressmen from the south voted for it, while no Republicans did. And yes, it does matter that a Democratic President who pushed it because for all the support that blacks gave the Republican party, they did nothing for blacks but coddle them. It took a Democratic President to go against his won party to push this because it was the right thing to do. And yeah, there was Republican support, but without Democrats, there would have been no Civil Rights Act even brought up. And what's even more important is which party chose to exploit the Act to get racist whites to vote for it.
@Barn
Because unlike your kids, I'm not forced to listen to your silliness.
Coming from someone who thought Bush did an "excellent" job, you already shown yourself to not know much. But see, when someone asks you for what can the Republican party do for blacks, you do like most Republicans, and that's run because you can't even back that *** up you're saying.
The only people that Republicans target is racist white people and the criminally insane and violent. And I did come up with something good the Democrats did; they brought up, forced a vote, and passed the Civil Rights Act. But when I ask you what have the Republicans done, you say "The Republicans don't play identity politics" and list not one thing, and then you launch into the rant about the Democrats. Typical Republican.
Congrats to the president, you have to give him that and as Iâm reading these comments, I am reminded of the last statement I made to someone about Obama and the ruling: "A sensible man knows you can't please everybody. A wise man knows you can't please anybody. And that was played out today. However, like many have argued before, healthcare is a moral obligation in that everyone should have insurance and access to health care and for those who could afford it; I see no problem in making sure they do. Although I do not agree with everything, it seems the biggest problem âthe obviousâ people had with the law are the audacity of a black man telling them to do it.
Back in slavery days which brought about many scholars, people like Banneker was known for their intellect and ingenuity and Obama could indirectly fall right into the category of intellect since his skills as a Constitutional Law Professor was also at stake in the argument as to why it is constitutional and it won.
Now, the Republicans should be in a position of Platoâs vision âSeeing through the Fogâ. Or, they can be the predictable party and revert to the death camps for the elderly or their class warfare B.S. However, Iâm sure they will be clever to make it inclusive of their argument on the economy by using the TAX code word to indicate that Obama is taxing Americans. We know how theyâre good at deflecting criticism and are always ahead of the Democrats.
@Great⦠of course the Repubs of today are not that of Lincoln. Their definition of a party is murkier than dirty water infiltrated by crazy racist tea-party old ***. And, the Republicans who opposed slavery are not the Republicans of today either so no wonder blacks flew the coup from them rather than staying with a party who stymied equality. BTW, Lincoln only freed those slaves because he wanted to keep the unions together. He used this tactic to keep slavery and unions together, go figure. However, people should vote on their personal beliefs, not an obligation to a party or the lesser of two evil B.S.
