Should Dean's life be ruined for saying the N-word 30-40-50 years ago?

[Pogo]

Artificial Lamestream Media -initiated shark feeding frenzies like the Paula Deen situation do not BEGIN life as 'political' but they quickly MORPH INTO something political...

This happens as the legal or societal controls over the media manifest themselves or otherwise become visible or clear, and as accountability-for-damage-done and the justice (or lack thereof) of the situation and all of the other aspects of such events come under scrutiny and discussion, some of which gain traction, and some of which do not...

To say that the Paula Deen Incident was 'policital' on Day One might have been a bit of a stretch, but as Day One unfolds, and spills over into other days, and as folks bring more aspects of legality and media-freedoms and accountability and pro-and-con political patterns to bear, it quickly BECOMES political...

As it has long-since become, by now...

sorry can't rep you for that...well said....

what liberals like Pogo don't understand is how Democrats have used PC opportunities like this to further their racial demogoguery in order to keep the black vote....which in the long run really hurts blacks more than it helps them...

to put things in historical perspective.....it was Republicans who pushed equal rights for blacks (during the Civil War and afterwards) for years and years while the segregationist Democrats fought the various Republican civil rights bills tooth-and-nail until eventually they saw the writing on the wall and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (overall with 82% Republicans and 66% Democrats).....which the Democrats then came to herald as THEIR legislative success and created the lie that THEY were the civil rights activists who saved the blacks from the treacherous Republicans....and have been doing so ever since...

What trolls like Screamer don't understand is that they live on fallacies. The basic one here, scraping for some way to stretch an employment practices suit into a political football; the secondary one being yet another trip to the Revisionist History well:

and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (overall with 82% Republicans and 66% Democrats

>> By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5 (84&#8211;16%) << (Wiki)

Total House: 156 D - 130 R (55%D - 45%R)
Total Senate: 46 D - 27 R (59%D - 41%R)
Total Congress: 202 D - 157 R (56%D - 44%R)

You actually think nobody will call 'bullshit' when you lie?

The Revisionistas Greatest Shits:

• "FDR caused the Great Depression"
• "Obama caused the 2008 Recession"
• "The KKK was founded by Democrats"
• "The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson"
• "Hitler was a liberal"
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery"...
and most usefully,
"Ignorance is Strength"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Artificial Lamestream Media -initiated shark feeding frenzies like the Paula Deen situation do not BEGIN life as 'political' but they quickly MORPH INTO something political...

This happens as the legal or societal controls over the media manifest themselves or otherwise become visible or clear, and as accountability-for-damage-done and the justice (or lack thereof) of the situation and all of the other aspects of such events come under scrutiny and discussion, some of which gain traction, and some of which do not...

To say that the Paula Deen Incident was 'policital' on Day One might have been a bit of a stretch, but as Day One unfolds, and spills over into other days, and as folks bring more aspects of legality and media-freedoms and accountability and pro-and-con political patterns to bear, it quickly BECOMES political...

As it has long-since become, by now...

sorry can't rep you for that...well said....

what liberals like Pogo don't understand is how Democrats have used PC opportunities like this to further their racial demogoguery in order to keep the black vote....which in the long run really hurts blacks more than it helps them...

to put things in historical perspective.....it was Republicans who pushed equal rights for blacks (during the Civil War and afterwards) for years and years while the segregationist Democrats fought the various Republican civil rights bills tooth-and-nail until eventually they saw the writing on the wall and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (overall with 82% Republicans and 66% Democrats).....which the Democrats then came to herald as THEIR legislative success and created the lie that THEY were the civil rights activists who saved the blacks from the treacherous Republicans....and have been doing so ever since...

What trolls like Screamer don't understand is that they live on fallacies. The basic one here, scraping for some way to stretch an employment practices suit into a political football; the secondary one being yet another trip to the Revisionist History well:

and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (overall with 82% Republicans and 66% Democrats

>> By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7&#8211;87 (7&#8211;93%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;10 (0&#8211;100%)

Northern Democrats: 145&#8211;9 (94&#8211;6%)
Northern Republicans: 138&#8211;24 (85&#8211;15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1&#8211;20 (5&#8211;95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;1 (0&#8211;100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45&#8211;1 (98&#8211;2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5 (84&#8211;16%) << (Wiki)

Total House: 156 D - 130 R (55%D - 45%R)
Total Senate: 46 D - 27 R (59%D - 41%R)
Total Congress: 202 D - 157 R (56%D - 44%R)

You actually think nobody will call 'bullshit' when you lie?

The Revisionistas Greatest Shits:

• "FDR caused the Great Depression"
• "Obama caused the 2008 Recession"
• "The KKK was founded by Democrats"
• "The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson"
• "Hitler was a liberal"
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery"...
and most usefully,
"Ignorance is Strength"

you really need to get a grip on history and stop drinking the leftist KoolAid...

you conveniently ignore the fact that there were FAR MORE DEMOCRATS....the Bill would have never passed unless it got the HIGH PERCENTAGE of Republican votes...the Republican vote was VITAL to its passage...

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill&#8212;the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats.

The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the &#8220;yea&#8221; votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the &#8220;nay&#8221; votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support.

As Time Magazine observed, &#8220;In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.&#8221;

A similar story is told in the Senate.

Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

and just look at the leaders....Senator Dirkson (R-IL) had been a long-time leader and advocate for all the various civil rights bills he tried to push forward......while Senator Byrd (D-WV) held one of the longest filibusters on record against it....President Johnson came to finally support the bill only because he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall after JFK's death and wanted to erase his racist past....

 

[Pogo]

sorry can't rep you for that...well said....

what liberals like Pogo don't understand is how Democrats have used PC opportunities like this to further their racial demogoguery in order to keep the black vote....which in the long run really hurts blacks more than it helps them...

to put things in historical perspective.....it was Republicans who pushed equal rights for blacks (during the Civil War and afterwards) for years and years while the segregationist Democrats fought the various Republican civil rights bills tooth-and-nail until eventually they saw the writing on the wall and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed (overall with 82% Republicans and 66% Democrats).....which the Democrats then came to herald as THEIR legislative success and created the lie that THEY were the civil rights activists who saved the blacks from the treacherous Republicans....and have been doing so ever since...

What trolls like Screamer don't understand is that they live on fallacies. The basic one here, scraping for some way to stretch an employment practices suit into a political football; the secondary one being yet another trip to the Revisionist History well:



>> By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7&#8211;87 (7&#8211;93%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;10 (0&#8211;100%)

Northern Democrats: 145&#8211;9 (94&#8211;6%)
Northern Republicans: 138&#8211;24 (85&#8211;15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1&#8211;20 (5&#8211;95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;1 (0&#8211;100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45&#8211;1 (98&#8211;2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5 (84&#8211;16%) << (Wiki)

Total House: 156 D - 130 R (55%D - 45%R)
Total Senate: 46 D - 27 R (59%D - 41%R)
Total Congress: 202 D - 157 R (56%D - 44%R)

You actually think nobody will call 'bullshit' when you lie?

The Revisionistas Greatest Shits:

• "FDR caused the Great Depression"
• "Obama caused the 2008 Recession"
• "The KKK was founded by Democrats"
• "The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson"
• "Hitler was a liberal"
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery"...
and most usefully,
"Ignorance is Strength"

you really need to get a grip on history and stop drinking the leftist KoolAid...

you conveniently ignore the fact that there were FAR MORE DEMOCRATS....the Bill would have never passed unless it got the HIGH PERCENTAGE of Republican votes...the Republican vote was VITAL to its passage...

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill&#8212;the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats.

The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the &#8220;yea&#8221; votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the &#8220;nay&#8221; votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support.

As Time Magazine observed, &#8220;In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.&#8221;

A similar story is told in the Senate.

Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

and just look at the leaders....Senator Dirkson (R-IL) had been a long-time leader and advocate for all the various civil rights bills he tried to push forward......while Senator Byrd (D-WV) held one of the longest filibusters on record against it....President Johnson came to finally support the bill only because he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall after JFK's death and wanted to erase his racist past....

It's "Dirksen". Can't even spell the man's name... and the other guy you're thinking of is Strom Thurmond, who railed for 24 hours in 1957. One of those Southern conservatives who all went to the Republican Party in protest of that Act, since the Democrats would no longer tolerate them -- a break that started in 1948 when the Dem campaign platform brought the entire Mississippi (and half the Alabama) delegations to walk out of the convention and Thurmond to run his own presidential campaign as a "Dixiecrat" -- the campaign that Trent Lott (another former Dem who switched) alluded to when he made his famous gaffe. And which is why all those Southern conservatives lopsided the Congressional vote in both parties.

They're all Republicans now; do with them what you will. Perhaps one or two of them can show you how math works.

And by the way if you want a look at the "leaders", start with Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey who defiantly brought the issue onto the 1948 platform, JFK for making it a priority, and LBJ for following through after his assassination, even knowing he'd split his own party.

ALL of which is off topic here; none of this has anything to do with Paula Deen.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What trolls like Screamer don't understand is that they live on fallacies. The basic one here, scraping for some way to stretch an employment practices suit into a political football; the secondary one being yet another trip to the Revisionist History well:



>> By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) << (Wiki)

Total House: 156 D - 130 R (55%D - 45%R)
Total Senate: 46 D - 27 R (59%D - 41%R)
Total Congress: 202 D - 157 R (56%D - 44%R)

You actually think nobody will call 'bullshit' when you lie?

The Revisionistas Greatest Shits:

• "FDR caused the Great Depression"
• "Obama caused the 2008 Recession"
• "The KKK was founded by Democrats"
• "The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson"
• "Hitler was a liberal"
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery"...
and most usefully,
"Ignorance is Strength"

you really need to get a grip on history and stop drinking the leftist KoolAid...

you conveniently ignore the fact that there were FAR MORE DEMOCRATS....the Bill would have never passed unless it got the HIGH PERCENTAGE of Republican votes...the Republican vote was VITAL to its passage...

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats.

The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support.

As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”

A similar story is told in the Senate.

Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

and just look at the leaders....Senator Dirkson (R-IL) had been a long-time leader and advocate for all the various civil rights bills he tried to push forward......while Senator Byrd (D-WV) held one of the longest filibusters on record against it....President Johnson came to finally support the bill only because he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall after JFK's death and wanted to erase his racist past....

It's "Dirksen". Can't even spell the man's name... and the other guy you're thinking of is Strom Thurmond, who railed for 24 hours in 1957. One of those Southern conservatives who all went to the Republican Party in protest of that Act, since the Democrats would no longer tolerate them -- a break that started in 1948 when the Dem campaign platform brought the entire Mississippi (and half the Alabama) delegations to walk out of the convention and Thurmond to run his own presidential campaign as a "Dixiecrat" -- the campaign that Trent Lott (another former Dem who switched) alluded to when he made his famous gaffe. And which is why all those Southern conservatives lopsided the Congressional vote in both parties.

They're all Republicans now; do with them what you will. Perhaps one or two of them can show you how math works.

And by the way if you want a look at the "leaders", start with Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey who defiantly brought the issue onto the 1948 platform, JFK for making it a priority, and LBJ for following through after his assassination, even knowing he'd split his own party.

ALL of which is off topic here; none of this has anything to do with Paula Deen.

you're the spinner....so what if i didn't spell Dirksen correctly....so what if racist Democrat-turned-Republican Dixiecrat state-rights Strom Thurmond railed for 24 hours in 1957.....so what if a few of your racist Democrats joined the Republican party in the South....there were still plenty of racists left behind in the Democrat Party....and just because some of them joined the Republicans does not mean that the WHOLE Republican party suddenly became racist...

the Democrat Party was slowly changing and catching up with the Republican Party regarding civil rights.....even in the 1968 presidential race Democrat Hubert Humphrey had to fight off racist Democrat George Wallace in the bid for the Democrat nomination....which helped Republican Nixon win......Nixon btw was very pro-civil rights...

in any case all your above stupid crap argument still does not change the FACT that a higher percentage of REPUBLICANS voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that it would have NEVER PASSED unless they did...

historically.....and today......the Democrats are STILL more racist in nature.....Paula Deen is just simply another casualty in their long history of 'politically correct' racial demogoguery...

 

[buckeye45_73]

Pogo if you want to bring up the southern strategy, we can throw down. So give me a quick take on the democrats and republicans historically and today

 

[tinydancer]

What trolls like Screamer don't understand is that they live on fallacies. The basic one here, scraping for some way to stretch an employment practices suit into a political football; the secondary one being yet another trip to the Revisionist History well:



>> By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7&#8211;87 (7&#8211;93%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;10 (0&#8211;100%)

Northern Democrats: 145&#8211;9 (94&#8211;6%)
Northern Republicans: 138&#8211;24 (85&#8211;15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1&#8211;20 (5&#8211;95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;1 (0&#8211;100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45&#8211;1 (98&#8211;2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5 (84&#8211;16%) << (Wiki)

Total House: 156 D - 130 R (55%D - 45%R)
Total Senate: 46 D - 27 R (59%D - 41%R)
Total Congress: 202 D - 157 R (56%D - 44%R)

You actually think nobody will call 'bullshit' when you lie?

The Revisionistas Greatest Shits:

• "FDR caused the Great Depression"
• "Obama caused the 2008 Recession"
• "The KKK was founded by Democrats"
• "The Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson"
• "Hitler was a liberal"
• Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964"

"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery"...
and most usefully,
"Ignorance is Strength"

you really need to get a grip on history and stop drinking the leftist KoolAid...

you conveniently ignore the fact that there were FAR MORE DEMOCRATS....the Bill would have never passed unless it got the HIGH PERCENTAGE of Republican votes...the Republican vote was VITAL to its passage...

Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill&#8212;the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats.

The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the &#8220;yea&#8221; votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the &#8220;nay&#8221; votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support.

As Time Magazine observed, &#8220;In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.&#8221;

A similar story is told in the Senate.

Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

and just look at the leaders....Senator Dirkson (R-IL) had been a long-time leader and advocate for all the various civil rights bills he tried to push forward......while Senator Byrd (D-WV) held one of the longest filibusters on record against it....President Johnson came to finally support the bill only because he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall after JFK's death and wanted to erase his racist past....

It's "Dirksen". Can't even spell the man's name... and the other guy you're thinking of is Strom Thurmond, who railed for 24 hours in 1957. One of those Southern conservatives who all went to the Republican Party in protest of that Act, since the Democrats would no longer tolerate them -- a break that started in 1948 when the Dem campaign platform brought the entire Mississippi (and half the Alabama) delegations to walk out of the convention and Thurmond to run his own presidential campaign as a "Dixiecrat" -- the campaign that Trent Lott (another former Dem who switched) alluded to when he made his famous gaffe. And which is why all those Southern conservatives lopsided the Congressional vote in both parties.

They're all Republicans now; do with them what you will. Perhaps one or two of them can show you how math works.

And by the way if you want a look at the "leaders", start with Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey who defiantly brought the issue onto the 1948 platform, JFK for making it a priority, and LBJ for following through after his assassination, even knowing he'd split his own party.

ALL of which is off topic here; none of this has anything to do with Paula Deen.

Why don't you show us the entire Dixiecrat list and how many became Republicans? And who stayed Democrats.

I can't wait.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo if you want to bring up the southern strategy, we can throw down. So give me a quick take on the democrats and republicans historically and today

Yannow, that might be a timely historical discussion at this time. Soon as someone can show me how any of this bullshit revisionista-ism has anything to do with the topic, down we throw.

Or you could just start one on that topic. I hear it's free.

(/offtopic)

 

[Pogo]

you really need to get a grip on history and stop drinking the leftist KoolAid...

you conveniently ignore the fact that there were FAR MORE DEMOCRATS....the Bill would have never passed unless it got the HIGH PERCENTAGE of Republican votes...the Republican vote was VITAL to its passage...



and just look at the leaders....Senator Dirkson (R-IL) had been a long-time leader and advocate for all the various civil rights bills he tried to push forward......while Senator Byrd (D-WV) held one of the longest filibusters on record against it....President Johnson came to finally support the bill only because he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall after JFK's death and wanted to erase his racist past....

It's "Dirksen". Can't even spell the man's name... and the other guy you're thinking of is Strom Thurmond, who railed for 24 hours in 1957. One of those Southern conservatives who all went to the Republican Party in protest of that Act, since the Democrats would no longer tolerate them -- a break that started in 1948 when the Dem campaign platform brought the entire Mississippi (and half the Alabama) delegations to walk out of the convention and Thurmond to run his own presidential campaign as a "Dixiecrat" -- the campaign that Trent Lott (another former Dem who switched) alluded to when he made his famous gaffe. And which is why all those Southern conservatives lopsided the Congressional vote in both parties.

They're all Republicans now; do with them what you will. Perhaps one or two of them can show you how math works.

And by the way if you want a look at the "leaders", start with Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey who defiantly brought the issue onto the 1948 platform, JFK for making it a priority, and LBJ for following through after his assassination, even knowing he'd split his own party.

ALL of which is off topic here; none of this has anything to do with Paula Deen.

you're the spinner....so what if i didn't spell Dirksen correctly....so what if racist Democrat-turned-Republican Dixiecrat state-rights Strom Thurmond railed for 24 hours in 1957.....so what if a few of your racist Democrats joined the Republican party in the South....there were still plenty of racists left behind in the Democrat Party....and just because some of them joined the Republicans does not mean that the WHOLE Republican party suddenly became racist...

the Democrat Party was slowly changing and catching up with the Republican Party regarding civil rights.....even in the 1968 presidential race Democrat Hubert Humphrey had to fight off racist Democrat George Wallace in the bid for the Democrat nomination....which helped Republican Nixon win......Nixon btw was very pro-civil rights...

in any case all your above stupid crap argument still does not change the FACT that a higher percentage of REPUBLICANS voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that it would have NEVER PASSED unless they did...

historically.....and today......the Democrats are STILL more racist in nature.....Paula Deen is just simply another casualty in their long history of 'politically correct' racial demogoguery...

Here's what's sailing over your head, Screamer:

Your attempt to broad-brush "all" Democrats as racist and "all" Republicans as champion white knights on white horses (OK that part might be accurate) is the same fallacy as your broad-brushing Paula Deen's party registration as some kind of causal effect for her use of the word "******". It isn't. That's cultural, not political. That's exactly why the Thurmonds and Helmses don't mind switching parties -- it's a lot easier than switching one's culture. And considering I already 'splained to you the differmints between culture and politics and you couldn't grasp it, we'll just leave it there until you do.

Bottom line here is the same as it was with your Australian link: culture is not politics. To equate the two just to try to smear one's despised political group is rhetorical bullshit. Basically you're playing the same fallacy over and over and expecting different results.

"Penguins are black and white; old TV shows are black and white. Therefore penguins are old TV shows"

 

[buckeye45_73]

Pogo if you want to bring up the southern strategy, we can throw down. So give me a quick take on the democrats and republicans historically and today

Yannow, that might be a timely historical discussion at this time. Soon as someone can show me how any of this bullshit revisionista-ism has anything to do with the topic, down we throw.

Or you could just start one on that topic. I hear it's free.

(/offtopic)

I've done it Pogo, and kicked libtard ass with it. Uh democrats have always been the racist party, but they just do it differently now.


Whats funny is that you compare saying ****** to racism. It's not, but lets go into this more. I havent read the entire thread, because it's pretty long, but I already know your points, and they are incorrect.

 

[buckeye45_73]

It's "Dirksen". Can't even spell the man's name... and the other guy you're thinking of is Strom Thurmond, who railed for 24 hours in 1957. One of those Southern conservatives who all went to the Republican Party in protest of that Act, since the Democrats would no longer tolerate them -- a break that started in 1948 when the Dem campaign platform brought the entire Mississippi (and half the Alabama) delegations to walk out of the convention and Thurmond to run his own presidential campaign as a "Dixiecrat" -- the campaign that Trent Lott (another former Dem who switched) alluded to when he made his famous gaffe. And which is why all those Southern conservatives lopsided the Congressional vote in both parties.

They're all Republicans now; do with them what you will. Perhaps one or two of them can show you how math works.

And by the way if you want a look at the "leaders", start with Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey who defiantly brought the issue onto the 1948 platform, JFK for making it a priority, and LBJ for following through after his assassination, even knowing he'd split his own party.

ALL of which is off topic here; none of this has anything to do with Paula Deen.

you're the spinner....so what if i didn't spell Dirksen correctly....so what if racist Democrat-turned-Republican Dixiecrat state-rights Strom Thurmond railed for 24 hours in 1957.....so what if a few of your racist Democrats joined the Republican party in the South....there were still plenty of racists left behind in the Democrat Party....and just because some of them joined the Republicans does not mean that the WHOLE Republican party suddenly became racist...

the Democrat Party was slowly changing and catching up with the Republican Party regarding civil rights.....even in the 1968 presidential race Democrat Hubert Humphrey had to fight off racist Democrat George Wallace in the bid for the Democrat nomination....which helped Republican Nixon win......Nixon btw was very pro-civil rights...

in any case all your above stupid crap argument still does not change the FACT that a higher percentage of REPUBLICANS voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that it would have NEVER PASSED unless they did...

historically.....and today......the Democrats are STILL more racist in nature.....Paula Deen is just simply another casualty in their long history of 'politically correct' racial demogoguery...

Here's what's sailing over your head, Screamer:

Your attempt to broad-brush "all" Democrats as racist and "all" Republicans as champion white knights on white horses (OK that part might be accurate) is the same fallacy as your broad-brushing Paula Deen's party registration as some kind of causal effect for her use of the word "******". It isn't. That's cultural, not political. That's exactly why the Thurmonds and Helmses don't mind switching parties -- it's a lot easier than switching one's culture. And considering I already 'splained to you the differmints between culture and politics and you couldn't grasp it, we'll just leave it there until you do.

Bottom line here is the same as it was with your Australian link: culture is not politics. To equate the two just to try to smear one's despised political group is rhetorical bullshit. Basically you're playing the same fallacy over and over and expecting different results.

"Penguins are black and white; old TV shows are black and white. Therefore penguins are old TV shows"

So if it's cultural then it's ok? I mean that's what your excuse for rappers saying it....and lets be honest I find it funny how people go apeshit over one word.....it's not a big deal, she says ******, trayveon says cracker, who gives a shit.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the Deen issue had not come up during the Zimmerman trial it wouldn't have made notice. The propaganda machine wants to punish racist Zimmerman but they can't. They created this sacrifice out of Paula Deen and taken a single word said to her husband 26 years ago and blew it up. It's called sublimation. What it is, is the new America at it's most disgusting. It is as if Bonfire of the Vanities was retold as a sick and absurd joke.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What's funny is with Zimmerman he's jewish and hispanic and a democrat (suprise, suprise!), but since he is a democrat and a minority, they designated him as a white hispanic, can others point to other specific people called that? And now the left is waging a war on whitey that whitey didnt even participate in...

gotta keep those NAACP and Rainbow Coalition coffers filled in with fake racism........

 

[Katzndogz]

Blacks are threatening hispanics with the same joyful abandon that has been used so successfully against whites. Have at it. Just don't expect the same results. There is no such thing as handing out water bottles and forgetting the whole thing. Then democrats will bring in 30 million more mexicans just to make sure.

 

[Pogo]

you're the spinner....so what if i didn't spell Dirksen correctly....so what if racist Democrat-turned-Republican Dixiecrat state-rights Strom Thurmond railed for 24 hours in 1957.....so what if a few of your racist Democrats joined the Republican party in the South....there were still plenty of racists left behind in the Democrat Party....and just because some of them joined the Republicans does not mean that the WHOLE Republican party suddenly became racist...

the Democrat Party was slowly changing and catching up with the Republican Party regarding civil rights.....even in the 1968 presidential race Democrat Hubert Humphrey had to fight off racist Democrat George Wallace in the bid for the Democrat nomination....which helped Republican Nixon win......Nixon btw was very pro-civil rights...

in any case all your above stupid crap argument still does not change the FACT that a higher percentage of REPUBLICANS voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that it would have NEVER PASSED unless they did...

historically.....and today......the Democrats are STILL more racist in nature.....Paula Deen is just simply another casualty in their long history of 'politically correct' racial demogoguery...

Here's what's sailing over your head, Screamer:

Your attempt to broad-brush "all" Democrats as racist and "all" Republicans as champion white knights on white horses (OK that part might be accurate) is the same fallacy as your broad-brushing Paula Deen's party registration as some kind of causal effect for her use of the word "******". It isn't. That's cultural, not political. That's exactly why the Thurmonds and Helmses don't mind switching parties -- it's a lot easier than switching one's culture. And considering I already 'splained to you the differmints between culture and politics and you couldn't grasp it, we'll just leave it there until you do.

Bottom line here is the same as it was with your Australian link: culture is not politics. To equate the two just to try to smear one's despised political group is rhetorical bullshit. Basically you're playing the same fallacy over and over and expecting different results.

"Penguins are black and white; old TV shows are black and white. Therefore penguins are old TV shows"

So if it's cultural then it's ok? I mean that's what your excuse for rappers saying it....and lets be honest I find it funny how people go apeshit over one word.....it's not a big deal, she says ******, trayveon says cracker, who gives a shit.

Nowhere did I say it's "ok" and nowhere have I said anything about (c)rappers. Nice try. Actually it's a horseshit try, but we don't have a colloquialism for that. Let's just leave it at "liar".

What I said was that it's logical bullshit to try to make the case that "Paula Deen is a Democrat, so since she said "******" all Democrats are racist". Just as it would be the same fallacy to assert "Paula Deen is a Capricornian, so since she said "******" all Capricornians are racist" or "Paula Deen is righthanded, so since she said "******" all righhanders are racist".

Sorry if that continues to sail over your tiny little head. You could stop ducking.
I can only lead the horse to water; I can't force him to think.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pogo can't explain why a person is ostracized for saying '******' but not for saying 'cracker'.....

she blames 'the culture'.....but she can't figure out why 'the culture' is so biased....

 

[Pogo]

Pogo can't explain why a person is ostracized for saying '******' but not for saying 'cracker'.....

she blames 'the culture'.....but she can't figure out why 'the culture' is so biased....

Pogo wasn't asked to explain any such thing, and has not been in any exchange about the word "cracker".

But go on, link me to where this is.

... who the fuck is "she"? Paula Deen? I don't think Paula Deen blamed anyone but herself. She put out an apology (in response to what I'm not sure) and it looked sincere to me.

Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pogo can't explain why a person is ostracized for saying '******' but not for saying 'cracker'.....

she blames 'the culture'.....but she can't figure out why 'the culture' is so biased....

Pogo wasn't asked to explain any such thing, and has not been in any exchange about the word "cracker".

But go on, link me to where this is.

... who the fuck is "she"? Paula Deen? I don't think Paula Deen blamed anyone but herself. She put out an apology (in response to what I'm not sure) and it looked sincere to me.

Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone?

i see you can't explain why 'the culture' is so biased...

why don't you liberals leave her the fuck alone....? stop creating PC bullshit that restricts free speech...

 

[Pogo]

Pogo can't explain why a person is ostracized for saying '******' but not for saying 'cracker'.....

she blames 'the culture'.....but she can't figure out why 'the culture' is so biased....

Pogo wasn't asked to explain any such thing, and has not been in any exchange about the word "cracker".

But go on, link me to where this is.

... who the fuck is "she"? Paula Deen? I don't think Paula Deen blamed anyone but herself. She put out an apology (in response to what I'm not sure) and it looked sincere to me.

Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone?

i see you can't explain why 'the culture' is so biased...

why don't you liberals leave her the fuck alone....? stop creating PC bullshit that restricts free speech...

What in the blue fuck are you babbling about?

Where is a "free speech" issue here? Do you have any clue what the term means?

Second, nobody asked me to explain why the culture is so biased. Nobody even postulated what this bias is.

I'm still waiting to a link to all that. Get busy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pogo wasn't asked to explain any such thing, and has not been in any exchange about the word "cracker".

But go on, link me to where this is.

... who the fuck is "she"? Paula Deen? I don't think Paula Deen blamed anyone but herself. She put out an apology (in response to what I'm not sure) and it looked sincere to me.

Why don't you just leave her the fuck alone?

i see you can't explain why 'the culture' is so biased...

why don't you liberals leave her the fuck alone....? stop creating PC bullshit that restricts free speech...

What in the blue fuck are you babbling about?

Where is a "free speech" issue here? Do you have any clue what the term means?

Second, nobody asked me to explain why the culture is so biased. Nobody even postulated what this bias is.

I'm still waiting to a link to all that. Get busy.

you are the one that claimed Deen's use of the word as due to 'the culture' and i agree she grew up in that kind of culture.....i'm asking you why 'the culture' is now so biased against The-word-that-shall-not-be-Spoken.....and not words like 'wop' or 'whitey' or 'cracker'....we have free speech and should be able to say all of the above words without reprisal unless they are being used to slander someone...

 

[Pogo]

i see you can't explain why 'the culture' is so biased...

why don't you liberals leave her the fuck alone....? stop creating PC bullshit that restricts free speech...

What in the blue fuck are you babbling about?

Where is a "free speech" issue here? Do you have any clue what the term means?

Second, nobody asked me to explain why the culture is so biased. Nobody even postulated what this bias is.

I'm still waiting to a link to all that. Get busy.

you are the one that claimed Deen's use of the word as due to 'the culture' and i agree she grew up in that kind of culture.....i'm asking you why 'the culture' is now so biased against The-word-that-shall-not-be-Spoken.....and not words like 'wop' or 'whitey' or 'cracker'....we have free speech and should be able to say all of the above words without reprisal unless they are being used to slander someone...

We did all this before in the exchange about PC and social mores...

First of all "free speech" as regards the law and the Constitution has to do with prohibiting government restraint. And there's no restraint on Paula Deen (or anybody else) from the government, from the Constitution, or from the law as far as what words they can use. NONE. Does not exist. Down goes politics.

So we're back to social mores. Why any of those mores exist is something you'd have to ask the culture, as it is we the people collectively who create them. My answer would be that wop and whitey and cracker are of a lower level because Italians and white people have never been put in chains (literally) by a dominant culture, nor did they ever need legislation and national guardsmen to get themselves treated like humans.

That would be my read. Now to get a full answer you have to ask everybody else in the country. This could take some time. Good luck in your new career.

(/offtopic)