Printable View
The Thread says American Politics during the Obama Presidency.
It started under Lincoln and ended under Obama.
I hope you saw the latest movie about Lincoln?
Need I say more?
[QUOTE=Jackson;431836]What the fuck does this have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jackson;431836]What the fuck does this have to do with anything?[/QUOTE]Okay, I'll tell you what it means: It means that you're a racist by perpetuating false racist stereotypes with your suggestion that all Republicans are "[i]Bad Bad White Republican[/i]" racists.
Of course you completely overlook the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans over the objections of the Democrats, but liberals don't care about facts because only emotions are important.
Here's not thanking you for your racist comments.
Jackson.
You mean the State is not a Red State?
I was not part of the racist party that did not sign the amendment.
They are the racists that they waited [B]Over a Hundred Years to sign it[/B].
I am just reporting history as it is.
Why did you need an additional Civil Rights Act, wasn't the 13th amendment was supposed end slavery and give them Civil Rights?
Oh yes, what the Civil Rights Act Have to do with "American Politics during the Obama Presidency".
[QUOTE=Jackson;431841]Okay, I'll tell you what it means: It means that you're a racist by perpetuating false racist stereotypes with your suggestion that all Republicans are "[i]Bad Bad White Republican[/i]" racists.
Of course you completely overlook the fact that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans over the objections of the Democrats, but liberals don't care about facts because only emotions are important.
Here's not thanking you for your racist comments.
Jackson.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431849]You mean the State is not a Red State?
I was not part of the racist party that did not sign the amendment.
They are the racists that they waited [B]Over a Hundred Years to sign it[/B].
I am just reporting history as it is.
Why did you need an additional Civil Rights Act, wasn't the 13th amendment was supposed end slavery and give them Civil Rights?
Oh yes, what the Civil Rights Act Have to do with "American Politics during the Obama Presidency".[/QUOTE]The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.
That did not get through to the losing states then either.
They had to remind them with the Civil Rights Act after the KKK, Governor George Wallace and the rest of his Good Old Whites Boys did not understand they had lost.
Same as today. The Republicans lost and still refuse to believe it.
In the sixties my sister, her husband and I drove from California to Florida. On the way we stopped at cities in the South and could not believe that almost 80 years after the 13th 14th and 15th amendments; we saw signs that said Whites only on bathrooms, water fountains and that Colored people had to go to the back of the bus. What a Shock! We had never seen anything like that in the West.
It looks like Marco Rubio is too colored for some of his party, that he had to move North.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;431851]The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431856]It looks like Marco Rubio is too colored for some of his party, that he had to move North.[/QUOTE]There it is. The true agenda. The politics of personal destruction rearing its ugly head. Let's continue to paint the narritave that all conversatives are evil racists and all liberals are as pure as the driven snow.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;431851]The 13th. Amendment ONLY abolished slavery in most terms but did not address Civil Rights untill the 14th. And 15th. Amendments.
TL.[/QUOTE]Facts are not important to liberals. Only emotions are important.
Then why are most Jews, blacks, Latinos voting dem?
I won't even start on the anti gay marriage stance from the right.
That's the fact.
Now I'm going fishing.
WT69, all the folks you named are Democrats not Republicans. Unless you are trying to rewrite history, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans because Democrats in the South refused to abide by the Amendments you named. One of the great Democratic Senators was a leader of the KKK who fought against integration and the Civil Rights Act!
Regarding Latino's, Blacks and Jews voting Democratic:
Blacks like the image of being victims and the hand outs.
Latino's want immigration laws changed so their illegal relatives can stay and receive handouts.
For the life of me I don't know why Jewish folks vote for these bone heads.
Everyone knows Bill Cosby. Years ago he was down on white people's treatment of blacks, buying into the victim ideology and the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al cheered him on. Today Cosby has done a 180 blaming blacks for their status and failure to progress earning the condemnation of the NAACP, Jackson and Sharpton.
Now WT69 why would a highly successful black man make such a change?
In the end, most people are resistant to change, as in the Civil Rights Act. They have be dragged, screaming & crying to the new order. America is going through new population & social mores, and the people who used to hold the power & status are desparately fighting against the inevitable. And so, as in ObamaCare & Immigration, we are now seeing a slow crumbling surrender. And so history marches on, regardless if you are in the way & getting stepped on. So, if you can find comfort in stubborness & righteousness, so be it.
Ha ! This thread can't go long without some new debate popping up. Politics is like our soap opera.
Regarding my recent brouhaha with another poster, it's unfortunate as I do value the camaraderie and good will between mongers. I'm sure that person is of fine character. Instead of making possibly elitist-sounding comments about worthiness, I should have just said "I'm not going to be bothered with this anymore." Which I'm not.
[QUOTE=Jackson;431861]Facts are not important to liberals. Only emotions are important.[/QUOTE]Long-time readers will know that this statement, which Jackson has repeated lately, is the complete reverse of what I've said several times in the past. Only the above statement is more definitive; while I used words like [I]"Conservatives tend to be more influenced by emotion."[/I], there is no such qualifier here. Jackson is surely just posting for fun. And the irony of making such an absolute statement, after scolding WT69 for making a sweeping statement about Republicans, is not lost here. LOL !! Good stuff.
WT69's post was indeed sweeping concerning Republicans. But it was fairly accurate concerning Mississippi. There is plenty of information documenting racism in the South, and Mississippi is often cited. Interestingly, an analysis of immediate post-2012-election Twitter "tweets" showed Mississippi and Alabama had the highest ratio of racist tweets. Per the link below, "They were followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, forming a "fairly distinctive cluster in the southeast" of online hate speech, the research finds."
Map lays out racist election tweets, most originated from southeast
[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/map-pinpoints-election-online-hate-tweets-article-1.1199402[/URL]
Racism isn't a big issue for me, but this finding isn't surprising. And here's some facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It wasn't just passed by Republicans, as Jackson implies. It was passed by majorities of [B]both[/B] Republicans and Democrats. The real story was the opposition in the South vs. the support in the North. And at the time, in the South, there were more congressional Democrats than Republicans. It was a regional difference not a party difference. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, the Act had a bit more support from Democrats than Republicans in both the North and the South. In fact, the Act had exactly [B]zero (0)[/B] support from Republicans in the South. Yes, facts are important to liberals.
This is an insult to those who live in the South and to people of all races. Esten would you please put your brain before your ideology. Even if you don't' believe the analysis, this chart, at best, shows, an association, but it does not in any way prove racism. Here are just a few of the reasons why. First, there are no methods. Second it seems it would count every tweet, every return tweet again, etc Third it is not population based. If you look at the source website the idiots who did this analysis have a pie chart that includes multiple categories subdividing the same data repeatedly but counting it each time (I.e. The same aged person is counted multiple times because they create categorical variables and then treat them like numbers. The data that makes up a pie chart must =100% The pieces can't overlap each other and add up to greater than 100% They also appear to have not realized Vermont is a state, and DC is not. Furthermore, African Americans likely use the two trigger words more often than do White Americans, and this chart does nothing to differentiate a racial slur from an idiot using trash terms within his or her own race. This is especially important because the South has a far higher relative percentage of African Americans. So what makes you think that all of these tweets were racism? Maybe they were all Democratic strategists tweeting each other and trying to stir up votes by making up yet another race issue.
Now let me go geek for a minute. If you combine the raw data with population statistics, you find that actually, by far, the highest % racist tweet per white person occurred in. Yes you guessed it Washington DC: a 48% Democratic area, right now, which also has a 49% black racial makeup. Do you believe DC is the bastion of racism? The next four highest states are North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, and Delaware (which is 52% Democrat) . This racial warfare crap is not useful to anyone or any race so why don't we stop stirring stupid flames based on crap data. BTW even in DC, which was more than 7 times greater than 42 other states, the number was 7.2%MILLION white people, or 0.000000072 of the tweets as a ratio. I really don't think you can say that something that occurred at a lower incidence than lightning strikes constitutes racism. All the data used for this analysis was taken from 2010 census data available at the US. Gov, Rasmussen, Gallop, Pugh, and CDC sites.
Pete.
[QUOTE=Esten;431876]Long-time readers will know that this statement, which Jackson has repeated lately, is the complete reverse of what I've said several times in the past. Only the above statement is more definitive; while I used words like [I]"Conservatives tend to be more influenced by emotion."[/I], there is no such qualifier here. Jackson is surely just posting for fun. And the irony of making such an absolute statement, after scolding WT69 for making a sweeping statement about Republicans, is not lost here. LOL !! Good stuff.
WT69's post was indeed sweeping concerning Republicans. But it was fairly accurate concerning Mississippi. There is plenty of information documenting racism in the South, and Mississippi is often cited. Interestingly, an analysis of immediate post-2012-election Twitter "tweets" showed Mississippi and Alabama had the highest ratio of racist tweets. Per the link below, "They were followed by Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, forming a "fairly distinctive cluster in the southeast" of online hate speech, the research finds."
Map lays out racist election tweets, most originated from southeast
[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/map-pinpoints-election-online-hate-tweets-article-1.1199402[/URL]
Racism isn't a big issue for me, but this finding isn't surprising. And here's some facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It wasn't just passed by Republicans, as Jackson implies. It was passed by majorities of [B]both[/B] Republicans and Democrats. The real story was the opposition in the South vs. the support in the North. And at the time, in the South, there were more congressional Democrats than Republicans. It was a regional difference not a party difference. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, the Act had a bit more support from Democrats than Republicans in both the North and the South. In fact, the Act had exactly [B]zero (0)[/B] support from Republicans in the South. Yes, facts are important to liberals.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;431867]WT69, all the folks you named are Democrats not Republicans. Unless you are trying to rewrite history, the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans because Democrats in the South refused to abide by the Amendments you named. One of the great Democratic Senators was a leader of the KKK who fought against integration and the Civil Rights Act!
Regarding Latino's, Blacks and Jews voting Democratic:
Blacks like the image of being victims and the hand outs.
Latino's want immigration laws changed so their illegal relatives can stay and receive handouts.
For the life of me I don't know why Jewish folks vote for these bone heads.
Everyone knows Bill Cosby. Years ago he was down on white people's treatment of blacks, buying into the victim ideology and the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al cheered him on. Today Cosby has done a 180 blaming blacks for their status and failure to progress earning the condemnation of the NAACP, Jackson and Sharpton.
Now WT69 why would a highly successful black man make such a change?[/QUOTE]People learn more as they get Older.
Yes a lot of the South Were Democrats in the Old Days, but there true Hearts and money were Southern Republicans. Check out Our History.
The lines are not that clear, same as now.
Peter maybe you are One in the South that Believe in what you say.
And also you did not see the same Signs as I Did.
Maybe you were too young to see what the South was and Some of the Old Timers Are?
Most of Us only want freedom for All.
I always wanted No Passports.
But now that reason, could be a problem.
Mainly because of Gangs, aka Politicians, and the Rich that what more than the Need. Cheap Labor, aka Greed etc!
[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;431877]This is an insult to those who live in the South and to people of all races. Esten would you please put your brain before your ideology. Even if you don't' believe the analysis, this chart, at best, shows, an association, but it does not in any way prove racism. Here are just a few of the reasons why. First, there are no methods. Second it seems it would count every tweet, every return tweet again, etc Third it is not population based. If you look at the source website the idiots who did this analysis have a pie chart that includes multiple categories subdividing the same data repeatedly but counting it each time (I.e. The same aged person is counted multiple times because they create categorical variables and then treat them like numbers. The data that makes up a pie chart must =100% The pieces can't overlap each other and add up to greater than 100% They also appear to have not realized Vermont is a state, and DC is not. Furthermore, African Americans likely use the two trigger words more often than do White Americans, and this chart does nothing to differentiate a racial slur from an idiot using trash terms within his or her own race. This is especially important because the South has a far higher relative percentage of African Americans. So what makes you think that all of these tweets were racism? Maybe they were all Democratic strategists tweeting each other and trying to stir up votes by making up yet another race issue.
Now let me go geek for a minute. If you combine the raw data with population statistics, you find that actually, by far, the highest % racist tweet per white person occurred in. Yes you guessed it Washington DC: a 48% Democratic area, right now, which also has a 49% black racial makeup. Do you believe DC is the bastion of racism? The next four highest states are North Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, and Delaware (which is 52% Democrat) . This racial warfare crap is not useful to anyone or any race so why don't we stop stirring stupid flames based on crap data. BTW even in DC, which was more than 7 times greater than 42 other states, the number was 7.2%MILLION white people, or 0.000000072 of the tweets as a ratio. I really don't think you can say that something that occurred at a lower incidence than lightning strikes constitutes racism. All the data used for this analysis was taken from 2010 census data available at the US. Gov, Rasmussen, Gallop, Pugh, and CDC sites.
Pete.[/QUOTE]