Al Sharpton fanning the flames of ignorance and hate...

[Pheonixops]

If Al Sharpton was sincere about helping blacks resist State Tyranny he'd advise them to all excerise their second amendment rights and walk around with rifles.

LOL, look at the contrast in the interaction: Both guys had their rifles slung in the same SLOPPY position, in the first video the contact begins at around 2 minutes.

Black Guy Open Carry AR15:



White guy open carry AR-15:

 

[Pheonixops]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

That is true but not really a statement for this thread. Sharpton is not a 'talking head' that we need to compare with another on the right. he is a special type of hate monger that is the lowest form of life that I can find. I cant even think of someone on the right that I would be willing to compare him with.

It has nothing to do with the fact that he is left. I dare even say that he really is left. He is simply a rasict asshole that is somehow still allowed to operate openly in this nation. For the life of me I cant understand why so many people buy his tripe.

That's the First Amendment. How many people do you think actually support him?

 

[Siete]

maybe Al will lose another 130lbs and vanish.

 

[Pheonixops]

historically the right has been at the forefront of racial equity. the right is not trying to oppress minorities in any way. however the left needs to keep racial tensions high to remind the minority vote they need them to fight for their rights.

LOL, right wingers like William F. Buckley and George Wallace, as well as other conservatives?

 

[Pheonixops]

Historically you're right. Currently tho...you're wrong

No.

Historically he's wrong too.

Conservatives were the confederates.

Reagan was conservative. Obama, liberal.

You lost.

LOL,
"A year after Reagan’s victory, a key operative gave what was then an anonymous interview, and perhaps lulled by the anonymity, he offered an unusually candid response to a question about Reagan, the Southern strategy, and the drive to attract the “Wallace voter”:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—, n—, n—.” [Editor's note: The actual word used by Atwater has been replaced with "N—" for the purposes of this article.] By 1968 you can’t say “n—” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut taxes and we want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N—, n—.” So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.

This analysis was provided by a young Lee Atwater. Its significance is two fold: First, it offers an unvarnished account of Reagan’s strategy. Second, it reveals the thinking of Atwater himself, someone whose career traced the rise of GOP dog whistle politics. A protégé of the pro-segregationist Strom Thurmond in South Carolina, the young Atwater held Richard Nixon as a personal hero, even describing Nixon’s Southern strategy as “a blue print for everything I’ve done.” After assisting in Reagan’s initial victory, Atwater became the political director of Reagan’s 1984 campaign, the manager of George Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign, and eventually the chair of the Republican National Committee. In all of these capacities, he drew on the quick sketch of dog whistle politics he had offered in 1981: from “n—, n—, n—” to “states’ rights” and “forced busing,” and from there to “cutting taxes”—and linking all of these, “race . . . coming on the back burner.”

When Reagan picked up the dog whistle in 1980, the continuity in technique nevertheless masked a crucial difference between him versus Wallace and Nixon. Those two had used racial appeals to get elected, yet their racially reactionary language did not match reactionary political positions. Political moderates, both became racial demagogues when it became clear that this would help win elections. Reagan was different. Unlike Wallace and Nixon, Reagan was not a moderate, but an old-time Goldwater conservative in both the ideological and racial senses, with his own intuitive grasp of the power of racial provocation. For Reagan, conservatism and racial resentment were inextricably fused.

In the early 1960s, Reagan was still a minor actor in Hollywood, but he was becoming increasingly active in conservative politics. When Goldwater decided to run for president, Reagan emerged as a fierce partisan. Reagan’s advocacy included a stock speech, given many times over, that drummed up support for Goldwater with overwrought balderdash such as the following: “We are

faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.” Reagan’s rightwing speechifying didn’t save Goldwater, but it did earn Reagan a glowing reputation among Republican groups in California, which led to his being recruited to run for governor of California in 1966. During that campaign, he wed his fringe politics to early dog whistle themes, for instance excoriating welfare, calling for law and order, and opposing government efforts to promote neighborhood integration. He also signaled blatant hostility toward civil rights, supporting a state ballot initiative to allow racial discrimination in the housing market, proclaiming: “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”

Reagan’s race-baiting continued when he moved to national politics. After securing the Republican nomination in 1980, Reagan launched his official campaign at a county fair just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi, the town still notorious in the national imagination for the Klan lynching of civil rights volunteers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner 16 years earlier. Reagan selected the location on the advice of a local official, who had written to the Republican National Committee assuring them that the Neshoba County Fair was an ideal place for winning “George Wallace inclined voters.” Neshoba did not disappoint. The candidate arrived to a raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000 whites chanting “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”—and he returned their fevered embrace by assuring them, “I believe in states’ rights.” In 1984, Reagan came back, this time to endorse the neo-Confederate slogan “the South shall rise again.” As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert concludes, “Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.”

Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats. On the stump, Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a “Chicago welfare queen” with “eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social Security cards [who] is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.” Often, Reagan placed his mythical welfare queen behind the wheel of a Cadillac, tooling around in flashy splendor. Beyond propagating the stereotypical image of a lazy, larcenous black woman ripping off society’s generosity without remorse, Reagan also implied

another stereotype, this one about whites: they were the workers, the tax payers, the persons playing by the rules and struggling to make ends meet while brazen minorities partied with their hard-earned tax dollars. More directly placing the white voter in the story, Reagan frequently elicited supportive outrage by criticizing the food stamp program as helping “some young fellow ahead of you to buy a T-bone steak” while “you were waiting in line to buy hamburger.” This was the toned-down version. When he first field-tested the message in the South, that “young fellow” was more particularly described as a “strapping young buck.” The epithet “buck” has long been used to conjure the threatening image of a physically powerful black man often one who defies white authority and who lusts for white women. When Reagan used the term “strapping young buck,” his whistle shifted dangerously toward the fully audible range. “Some young fellow” was less overtly racist and so carried less risk of censure, and worked just as well to provoke a sense of white victimization."

 

[1776]

Thousands of black males killed by other black males....not a peep from the liberal race baiting scum.

Oh but as soon as some black male attacks a non-black and ends up dead.....well time to riot and protest.

Fucking insane.

 

[Rinata]

You lefties are all alike. You can't deal with an issue. You have to somehow find something equivalent and act as though they justify each other. Sharpton is a charleton who fans segregation flames in order to promote himself. Fools give him credence and defend him.
I expect lefties to mention Sharpton in order to defend the KKK when someone starts a thread about them. Same twisted lefty lack of logic.

Sounds like you are making this issue more complicated than it needs to be. The police used excessive force on a guy selling cigarettes and he died as a result. The dead man is black so Al Sharpton is protesting the actions of the police. As we all should. It probably would not have happened had the man been white.

What exactly is your problem here?? Please be succinct. I don't see how Al Sharpton has fanned flames of any kind. He simply wants justice.

 

[Staidhup]

historically the right has been at the forefront of racial equity. the right is not trying to oppress minorities in any way. however the left needs to keep racial tensions high to remind the minority vote they need them to fight for their rights.

LOL, right wingers like William F. Buckley and George Wallace, as well as other conservatives?

George Wallace was a Democrat, anti civil rights and stanch voting rights opponent along with the likes of Sen. Strom Thurman, LBJ and a host of others...... WF Buckley was a conservative and avid supporter of President Eisenhower's position on the enforcement of the 1957 Voting rights act, Brown vs the Board of Education, and sending in troops to enforce the law. In short numb nuts you don't have a clue about what you are writing about. But then again it is after all all about the bullshit isn't it?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If Al Sharpton was sincere about helping blacks resist State Tyranny he'd advise them to all excerise their second amendment rights and walk around with rifles.

Lunacy.

You don't trust blacks with rifles? Are you racist?

An armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a slave. Blacks will be slaves today, tomorrow and forever so long as they are disarmed.

My advice is simple: Do what the Whites do --- peace through strength.

 

[Pheonixops]

historically the right has been at the forefront of racial equity. the right is not trying to oppress minorities in any way. however the left needs to keep racial tensions high to remind the minority vote they need them to fight for their rights.

LOL, right wingers like William F. Buckley and George Wallace, as well as other conservatives?

George Wallace was a Democrat, anti civil rights and stanch voting rights opponent along with the likes of Sen. Strom Thurman, LBJ and a host of others...... WF Buckley was a conservative and avid supporter of President Eisenhower's position on the enforcement of the 1957 Voting rights act, Brown vs the Board of Education, and sending in troops to enforce the law. In short numb nuts you don't have a clue about what you are writing about. But then again it is after all all about the bullshit isn't it?

George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were both conservatives, it seems that your problem is a partisan hack one. As for William F. Buckley:

"Writing in 1957, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”"

"In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said “Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”

Neatly done. Where in ’57 he’d asserted a right even of a minority of whites to impose racial segregation by literally any means necessary, including breaking federal law, in ’04 Buckley expressed regret for having supposedly believed only that segregation would wither away without federal intervention. Stupid the man was not. He gets credited today both with honesty about his past and with having, in his own way, “evolved up.” Modern conservatives, more importantly, get to ignore the realities of their movement’s origins."

George Wallace:

" It is therefore a cruel irony that the President of the United States has only yesterday signed into law the most monstrous piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress.

It is a fraud, a sham, and a hoax.

This bill will live in infamy. To sign it into law at any time is tragic. To do so upon the eve of the celebration of our independence insults the intelligence of the American people.

It dishonors the memory of countless thousands of our dead who offered up their very lives in defense of principles which this bill destroys.

Never before in the history of this nation have so many human and property rights been destroyed by a single enactment of the Congress. It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin's knife stuck in the back of liberty.

With this assassin's knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage. Bondage to a tyranny more brutal than that imposed by the British monarchy which claimed power to rule over the lives of our forefathers under sanction of the Divine Right of kings. "

"The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., To figure out what to do with it. "

" You and I know that that's extremely difficult to do where our newspapers are owned by out-of-state interests. Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.

However, we will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty. "


Before you call someone "numb nuts" , do your research jerk off.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

Sorry, but the left is preeminently responsible for the political and cultural polarization of America. It's not even close. Cultural Marxism is a conscious and systematic assault on America's founding sociopolitical ethos, and the idea that those who oppose it are being divisive is absurd.

How so, any examples?

More. . . .

Lost what?

Reagan had plenty of really racist policies.

Aside from siding with the Apartheid government of South Africa, he was deeply divisive and coined the phrase "Welfare Queen". He launched his campaign in Phildelaphia, Mississippi, where the Klan famously lynched civil rights volunteers.

He used Affirmative Action/Welfare as wedge issue to deeply divide America along racial lines. He also vetoed the civil rights restoration act.

While he may not have been personally racist? He catered to the racists in the country.

Ah! Look at this. We got ourselves a prime example made to order courtesy of the flaming cultural Marxist Sallow.

Thanks, Sallow. I'll take it from here.

Wedge issue: that's a term America began to hear with great frequency during the 1980's of Reagan's Administration. You see, for the first time in decades, since the birth of the subversive Progressive movement, the assumptions of lefty's systematic destruction of the American character from its founding were seriously challenged.

The vote-buying bread and circuses of the welfare state, including affirmative action, had clearly failed to achieve their stated goals. Blacks had been especially ill-served by lefty's institutional racism, as they were disproportionately mired in the humiliations of entrenched poverty, illegitimacy and mediocre state schools, just for starters.

Conservatives were talking about the kind of reforms that would actually liberate folks stuck on lefty's welfare plantation of low expectations and dependency. Hence, the proposed reforms of the 80's, many of which were eventually adopted in the 90's to great success, really pissed lefty off, as they highlighted the abysmal failure of the so-called War on Poverty. For example, assailing cradle-to-grave welfare, state-sponsored reverse discrimination and the corruption of the teachers' unions was said to be the stuff of wedge issues.

Folks who questioned the wisdom of encouraging millions to go on thinking of themselves as the perpetual victims of racism with no other option but to stay on lefty's welfare plantation were said to be racists.

Rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, responsibility, accountability, competition: these were terms used by persons who encouraged the infantilized dependent to lay off the government tit . . . er . . . I mean, these were terms used by persons who were determined to expose lefty for the power-hungry, statist whore that he is . . . er. . . . Dang. I said it all wrong again. My bad.

These were the code words of racists who would divide the country. There. That's what lefty claims.

 

[DriftingSand]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

That's why I place Sharpton & Palin on the same coin; contrast Liddy Dole, and Gillibrand.

Apples and Oranges. Palin doesn't trot herself out into the public spotlight every time a white person is assaulted or otherwise harmed by a black person. Sharpton, on the other hand, is an ambulance chaser who capitalizes on any and every issue concerning a black who is wronged (or supposedly wronged) by a white person. You won't see him show up if a black harms a white; you won't see him show up if a white harms a white; and you won't see him show up if a black harms a black. He ONLY shows up if he can produce a "race card." You and I both know it.

Palin, on the other hand, shows up to promote and defend the Constitution that most Libs despise. It's why they despise her.

 

[Pheonixops]

Sharpton to Ferguson Rioters: Don?t Drag Michael Brown?s Name ?Through the Mud? | Mediaite

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

LOL, right wingers like William F. Buckley and George Wallace, as well as other conservatives?

George Wallace was a Democrat, anti civil rights and stanch voting rights opponent along with the likes of Sen. Strom Thurman, LBJ and a host of others...... WF Buckley was a conservative and avid supporter of President Eisenhower's position on the enforcement of the 1957 Voting rights act, Brown vs the Board of Education, and sending in troops to enforce the law. In short numb nuts you don't have a clue about what you are writing about. But then again it is after all all about the bullshit isn't it?

George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were both conservatives, it seems that your problem is a partisan hack one. As for William F. Buckley:

"Writing in 1957, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”"

"In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said “Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”

Neatly done. Where in ’57 he’d asserted a right even of a minority of whites to impose racial segregation by literally any means necessary, including breaking federal law, in ’04 Buckley expressed regret for having supposedly believed only that segregation would wither away without federal intervention. Stupid the man was not. He gets credited today both with honesty about his past and with having, in his own way, “evolved up.” Modern conservatives, more importantly, get to ignore the realities of their movement’s origins."

George Wallace:

" It is therefore a cruel irony that the President of the United States has only yesterday signed into law the most monstrous piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress.

It is a fraud, a sham, and a hoax.

This bill will live in infamy. To sign it into law at any time is tragic. To do so upon the eve of the celebration of our independence insults the intelligence of the American people.

It dishonors the memory of countless thousands of our dead who offered up their very lives in defense of principles which this bill destroys.

Never before in the history of this nation have so many human and property rights been destroyed by a single enactment of the Congress. It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin's knife stuck in the back of liberty.

With this assassin's knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage. Bondage to a tyranny more brutal than that imposed by the British monarchy which claimed power to rule over the lives of our forefathers under sanction of the Divine Right of kings. "

"The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., To figure out what to do with it. "

" You and I know that that's extremely difficult to do where our newspapers are owned by out-of-state interests. Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.

However, we will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty. "


Before you call someone "numb nuts" , do your research jerk off.

Your lumping the likes of conservative, albeit, Southern progressives like Thurmond and Wallace in with Buckley and Reagan is disingenuous. The latter were classical liberals who simply feared the result of encouraging blacks to rely on government would prove to be harmful, would in fact lead to the sort of destructive policies of the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Administration. They were not entirely wrong to believe that. Both Buckley and Reagan eventually revised their understanding of things insofar as institutional racial discrimination was concerned and came to appreciate the necessity of the federal government's intervention to put an end to the violations of fundamental political rights in the South.

 

[Clementine]

Sorry, but the left is preeminently responsible for the political and cultural polarization of America. It's not even close. Cultural Marxism is a conscious and systematic assault on America's founding sociopolitical ethos, and the idea that those who oppose it are being divisive is absurd.

How so, any examples?

More. . . .

Lost what?

Reagan had plenty of really racist policies.

Aside from siding with the Apartheid government of South Africa, he was deeply divisive and coined the phrase "Welfare Queen". He launched his campaign in Phildelaphia, Mississippi, where the Klan famously lynched civil rights volunteers.

He used Affirmative Action/Welfare as wedge issue to deeply divide America along racial lines. He also vetoed the civil rights restoration act.

While he may not have been personally racist? He catered to the racists in the country.

Ah! Look at this. We got ourselves a prime example made to order courtesy of the flaming cultural Marxist Sallow.

Thanks, Sallow. I'll take it from here.

Wedge issue: that's a term America began to hear with great frequency during the 1980's of Reagan's Administration. You see, for the first time in decades, since the birth of the subversive Progressive movement, the assumptions of lefty's systematic destruction of the American character from its founding were seriously challenged.

The vote-buying bread and circuses of the welfare state, including affirmative action, had clearly failed to achieve their stated goals. Blacks had been especially ill-served by lefty's institutional racism, as they were disproportionately mired in the humiliations of entrenched poverty, illegitimacy and mediocre state schools, just for starters.

Conservatives were talking about the kind of reforms that would actually liberate folks stuck on lefty's welfare plantation of low expectations and dependency. Hence, the proposed reforms of the 80's, many of which were eventually adopted in the 90's to great success, really pissed lefty off, as they highlighted the abysmal failure of the so-called War on Poverty. For example, assailing cradle-to-grave welfare, state-sponsored reverse discrimination and the corruption of the teachers' unions was said to be the stuff of wedge issues.

Folks who questioned the wisdom of encouraging millions to go on thinking of themselves as the perpetual victims of racism with no other option but to stay on lefty's welfare plantation were said to be racists.

Rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, responsibility, accountability, competition: these were terms used by persons who encouraged the infantilized dependent to lay off the government tit . . . er . . . I mean, these were terms used by persons who were determined to expose lefty for the power-hungry, statist whore that he is . . . er. . . . Dang. I said it all wrong again. My bad.

These were the code words of racists who would divide the country. There. That's what lefty claims.

Well said!!!!

The left needs victims to help to stay in power so they make policies that create more victims. And the more victims they create, the more programs they come up with to keep them content. It's a vicious cycle.

The Dems were against freeing the slaves and against equal rights. The equal rights restoration wasn't about being equal. It was about insuring that those they helped never made it out of those liberal plantations and those that did got a big hand up from big brother. The liberals have no faith in minorities. They see them as something to be used and that is exactly what they do. They balk at rugged individualism and all the other things that make this country great. Some put all their faith in big government because they have no faith in themselves.

The end game is socialism. Creating a majority of citizens who are hopelessly dependent on government is an important step in getting there. Of course, they cannot be honest about that, so we get all this bullshit about helping people when the wannabe dictators are really just helping themselves. They have to play the race card and make people believe they are victims in order to keep them in line.

People don't succeed because of government, rather despite it. Those that did the best stepped away from nanny government and succeeded the way every other person did. The far left has a meltdown when minorities prove that they don't need big government and they are in constant fear of other minorities getting big ideas in their heads about doing the same. The far left is quick to impugn those minorities who are living the American dream. It's a subtle warning for others not to get out of line and prove that socialist programs suck.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, Sharpton...Tell me about the other 4,000 blacks murdered by the hands of their own people each and every year. Tell me about blacks murdering twice as many whites.

You want to talk about race?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sharpton to Ferguson Rioters: Don?t Drag Michael Brown?s Name ?Through the Mud? | Mediaite

Good, there shouldn't be any rioting and looting. Also, this isn't about race as my brother a few month ago was also murdered by the police. The police kill all races no matter what.

 

[Pheonixops]

Sorry, but the left is preeminently responsible for the political and cultural polarization of America. It's not even close. Cultural Marxism is a conscious and systematic assault on America's founding sociopolitical ethos, and the idea that those who oppose it are being divisive is absurd.

How so, any examples?

More. . . .

Lost what?

Reagan had plenty of really racist policies.

Aside from siding with the Apartheid government of South Africa, he was deeply divisive and coined the phrase "Welfare Queen". He launched his campaign in Phildelaphia, Mississippi, where the Klan famously lynched civil rights volunteers.

He used Affirmative Action/Welfare as wedge issue to deeply divide America along racial lines. He also vetoed the civil rights restoration act.

While he may not have been personally racist? He catered to the racists in the country.

Ah! Look at this. We got ourselves a prime example made to order courtesy of the flaming cultural Marxist Sallow.

Thanks, Sallow. I'll take it from here.

Wedge issue: that's a term America began to hear with great frequency during the 1980's of Reagan's Administration. You see, for the first time in decades, since the birth of the subversive Progressive movement, the assumptions of lefty's systematic destruction of the American character from its founding were seriously challenged.

The vote-buying bread and circuses of the welfare state, including affirmative action, had clearly failed to achieve their stated goals. Blacks had been especially ill-served by lefty's institutional racism, as they were disproportionately mired in the humiliations of entrenched poverty, illegitimacy and mediocre state schools, just for starters.

Conservatives were talking about the kind of reforms that would actually liberate folks stuck on lefty's welfare plantation of low expectations and dependency. Hence, the proposed reforms of the 80's, many of which were eventually adopted in the 90's to great success, really pissed lefty off, as they highlighted the abysmal failure of the so-called War on Poverty. For example, assailing cradle-to-grave welfare, state-sponsored reverse discrimination and the corruption of the teachers' unions was said to be the stuff of wedge issues.

Folks who questioned the wisdom of encouraging millions to go on thinking of themselves as the perpetual victims of racism with no other option but to stay on lefty's welfare plantation were said to be racists.

Rugged individualism, self-sufficiency, responsibility, accountability, competition: these were terms used by persons who encouraged the infantilized dependent to lay off the government tit . . . er . . . I mean, these were terms used by persons who were determined to expose lefty for the power-hungry, statist whore that he is . . . er. . . . Dang. I said it all wrong again. My bad.

These were the code words of racists who would divide the country. There. That's what lefty claims.

What percentage of people are on welfare ,what percentage of people are unemployed, and what percentage of people are in poverty?

 

[Pheonixops]

George Wallace was a Democrat, anti civil rights and stanch voting rights opponent along with the likes of Sen. Strom Thurman, LBJ and a host of others...... WF Buckley was a conservative and avid supporter of President Eisenhower's position on the enforcement of the 1957 Voting rights act, Brown vs the Board of Education, and sending in troops to enforce the law. In short numb nuts you don't have a clue about what you are writing about. But then again it is after all all about the bullshit isn't it?

George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were both conservatives, it seems that your problem is a partisan hack one. As for William F. Buckley:

"Writing in 1957, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically,” because the white race was “for the time being, the advanced race.”"

"In 2004, asked whether he’d ever taken a position he now regretted, he said “Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.”

Neatly done. Where in ’57 he’d asserted a right even of a minority of whites to impose racial segregation by literally any means necessary, including breaking federal law, in ’04 Buckley expressed regret for having supposedly believed only that segregation would wither away without federal intervention. Stupid the man was not. He gets credited today both with honesty about his past and with having, in his own way, “evolved up.” Modern conservatives, more importantly, get to ignore the realities of their movement’s origins."

George Wallace:

" It is therefore a cruel irony that the President of the United States has only yesterday signed into law the most monstrous piece of legislation ever enacted by the United States Congress.

It is a fraud, a sham, and a hoax.

This bill will live in infamy. To sign it into law at any time is tragic. To do so upon the eve of the celebration of our independence insults the intelligence of the American people.

It dishonors the memory of countless thousands of our dead who offered up their very lives in defense of principles which this bill destroys.

Never before in the history of this nation have so many human and property rights been destroyed by a single enactment of the Congress. It is an act of tyranny. It is the assassin's knife stuck in the back of liberty.

With this assassin's knife and a blackjack in the hand of the Federal force-cult, the left-wing liberals will try to force us back into bondage. Bondage to a tyranny more brutal than that imposed by the British monarchy which claimed power to rule over the lives of our forefathers under sanction of the Divine Right of kings. "

"The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., To figure out what to do with it. "

" You and I know that that's extremely difficult to do where our newspapers are owned by out-of-state interests. Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names.

However, we will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty. "


Before you call someone "numb nuts" , do your research jerk off.

Your lumping the likes of conservative, albeit, Southern progressives like Thurmond and Wallace in with Buckley and Reagan is disingenuous. The latter were classical liberals who simply feared the result of encouraging blacks to rely on government would prove to be harmful, would in fact lead to the sort of destructive policies of the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years" Administration. They were not entirely wrong to believe that. Both Buckley and Reagan eventually revised their understanding of things insofar as institutional racial discrimination was concerned and came to appreciate the necessity of the federal government's intervention to put an end to the violations of fundamental political rights in the South.

How is it allegedly "disingenuous" when they all stood on the same side of the issue regarding Civil Rights and the legislation thereof? I just posted examples of William F. Buckley's stance on white superiority and rule , even if they were the minority in certain areas. The excerpt from the speech by Wallace that I posted, is pretty much the same rhetoric being preached by conservatives today. Lee (Southern Strategy)Atwater worked for both Thurmond and Reagan.

I don't recall Buckley or Reagan calling themselves Liberals. Aren't the aforementioned "conservative icons" and didn't they allegedly preach "conservatism"? The FACT is, that Thurmond, Wallace, Buckley, and Reagan stood on the same side on those issues.

"Thurmond later openly opposed the national party’s liberal plank on civil rights. The summer before the 1964 presidential election, Thurmond decided not to attend the Democratic national convention because of his ideological differences on civil rights, which separated him from the national party’s politics. In a 1964 speech to a South Carolina audience, Thurmond denounced the Democratic Party platform and announced his realignment with the Republican Party and his support of Barry Goldwater’s (a Republican senator from Arizona) 1964 presidential candidacy. Thurmond found more ideological connections with the conservative Goldwater, who, although he was not a segregationist per se, had outlined in 1961 a “southern strategy” to invite southerners to support the Republican Party as the anticivil rights political party. Thurmond’s partisan realignment influenced the eventual realignment of most white southern Democrats to the Republican Party. His realignment with the Republican Party also laid the foundation for what would become a new and lifelong commitment to this political party.

 

[ClosedCaption]

We have plenty of talking heads on both sides of the aisle who are responsible for the vast polarization of this country. It's just not one side who is responsible.
We should be pissed off at both sides, not just "the other side".

That's why I place Sharpton & Palin on the same coin; contrast Liddy Dole, and Gillibrand.

Apples and Oranges. Palin doesn't trot herself out into the public spotlight every time a white person is assaulted or otherwise harmed by a black person. Sharpton, on the other hand, is an ambulance chaser who capitalizes on any and every issue concerning a black who is wronged (or supposedly wronged) by a white person. You won't see him show up if a black harms a white; you won't see him show up if a white harms a white; and you won't see him show up if a black harms a black. He ONLY shows up if he can produce a "race card." You and I both know it.

Palin, on the other hand, shows up to promote and defend the Constitution that most Libs despise. It's why they despise her.

That's because Pain is a pol and Sharpton is an Activist. Your beef sounds like being mad at a carpenter for not plumbing lol