Once again- what I said is this Asking whats to wrong with racism is akin to asking whats so wrong with murder anyway Your misinterpretation of that is not my problem.
You directly linked murder with racism. Are you suddenly feeling not as confident in your assertion after I challenged on you on it? Why not just answer my question?
The same lie over and over again.................. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/10/where-did-all-of-dixiecrats-go.html 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 - - - Updated - - - http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act by R.D. Davis A New Visions Commentary paper published December 1999 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn't fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he's fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really? On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: "I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America... And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country." I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again... The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it. Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961." The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527). At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement." The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."
How many of those men on your lists were in politics after 1975. Also of the men on your list how many of their children and grandchildren are Democrats today.
Examining the reasons for racism, should never be construed as justification for the same. Still, a lot of people do indeed conflate those two things.
I largely feel the same way. While I don't like racism that excludes in free association based on racial characteristics, I find that prohibiting is more of an infringement on freedom than allowing it. The real concern is when violence is done on another, in which case I find that whether or not race was involved is trivial. If a man kills another man for illegitimate or unjust reasons, it hardly matters what those illegitimate or unjust reasons are. If it was for a "wrong look", for "checking out my girlfriend", for an insult, for littering, or for being black, the reason is illegitimate and unjust and deserves the same punishment. The punishment should only be limited given legitimate concerns. For example, we can partially under some loose sense of 'justice' in killing if the man was attacked, or if it was accidental, or if it was in the heat of the moment (like man b beat man a's wife, so man a in a fit of rage kills man b). Racist aims fulfill no such legitimacy.
You don't know what the word circumstance means do you? Your misunderstanding of what a circumstance means shows itself right here. PLace of birth is a circumstance of birth. But you are conflating the place a child was born with their race. Well, at least you got the last 4 right. Then on your logic there is no difference between male and female. You make the common mistake of ad hoc reasoning. Why do different color people create different kinds of cultures? Exponentially lower iq is not superficial. http://drakeshelton.com/2014/01/25/documentation-on-the-intellectual-inferiority-of-the-black-race/ http://drakeshelton.com/2014/01/29/blame-whitey-discrimination-based-on-racial-hate-or-racial-facts/ So certain religions and temperatures help people learn math? Interesting. Btw what proof do you have that "there are huge differences between the accomplishments and cultures of those of the same predominate race"? 2. Mr. Baker's opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is what Livingston documented in his explorations into Sub-Saharan Africa.
Refer to my list of liberal racist quotes if you want examples of present day racism. And what do their children and grandchildren have to do with what they said or did.
If you need to have racism defined then one can only conclude that you have some sort of defense or justification for your beliefs prepared. Sorry but there is no defense for bigotry born of ignorance and stupidity.
..unless, of course, you're the one being oppressed. Didn't you mention something earlier about 'thinking'? Try doing some.
Why do white people have such a huge variety of cultures? Oh, and linking us to some insane, religious, pro-white, racist blog site isn't going to earn you any points for credibility.
I see your seething hatred and religious bigotry is still intact. - - - Updated - - - So who is being oppressed here?
Trust me, I despise religious dogma intensely. I especially despise hypocrites who claim to follow their given faith yet display none of the characteristics of the religion they are purporting to follow.
You------------ Oh, and linking us to some insane, religious, pro-white, racist blog site isn't going to earn you any points for credibility. Stop the hate.
Well, it is an insane, religious, pro-white, racist blog site. Tell me where I was mistaken in my appraisal. This is the lunatic you appear to admire so much: http://double-woe-seven.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/christian-apologist-drake-sheltons.html
No thanks; I don't deal with white supremacists and I don't sink to their level to please an anonymous forum member. You, of course, can continue to link us to racist sites and their lunatic members. I, of course, will continue to deride and expose them.
There is a difference between race conscientiousness and racism. Black people in the US are conscious of race, because it's been used as a bludgeon against them for centuries. So yeah, they are aware of it.
Political parties change with time, so I think it's fairer to say liberal & conservitive when speaking of historical events, such as you're doing. It was the conservative faction who wanted to return to Slaverey, ex confederate soldiers who started the KKK, ended reconstruction by instatuting Jim Crow laws. The old, it was the Dems arguement, presumes no knowledge of the evolution of the parties. While Lib, con is much more accurate.
Until you actually disprove any claims from any link, you've done nothing to convince any forum member of your position nor have you 'exposed' anyone. You, of course, will continue to go ad homenim and cite your rage as 'evidence'.
