Why Black Voters Should Hate The Democrat Party

[Titanic Sailor]

If a Republican issued these words, instead of Democrat Harry Reid there would be hell:

as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Many Democrats opposed the abolition of slavery, and not just the one's in the South either:
The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the Northern United States (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. Republicans started calling antiwar Democrats "copperheads", likening them to the poisonous snake. The Peace Democrats accepted the label, but for them the copper "head" was the likeness of Liberty, which they cut from copper pennies proudly wore as badges. [1]

The Copperheads had numerous important newspapers, but the editors never formed an alliance. In Chicago, Wilbur F. Storey made the Chicago Times into Lincoln's most vituperative enemy. The New York Journal of Commerce, originally abolitionist, was sold to owners who became Copperheads, giving them an important voice in the largest city. A typical editor was Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania Genius of Liberty. He was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw black people as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce. Although he supported the war effort in 1861, he blamed abolitionists for prolonging the war and denounced the government as increasingly despotic. By 1864 he was calling for peace at any price.

Hell, look at the overwhelming percentage of Democrats compared to Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act:
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 Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Responding to allegations that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist, the Kennedy administration agreed to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap private individuals, including Martin Luther King, Jr. This continued under Democrat Lyndon Johnson by the way.

Some day, when everyone has an opportunity to read and learn history, and realize today who the Democrats are, they will agree that Democrats are the Party of racism against blacks, bar none.

Always have been, always will be...........

 

[Titanic Sailor]

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Ya, that 's a real unicorn isn't it Democrat Vice President Joe Biden?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Of course, no Democrat would ever try to dilute minority voting:

Democrat Finneran Update

Board recommends Finneran disbarred

Updated: Friday, 13 Mar 2009, 9:54 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 13 Mar 2009, 9:28 PM EDT

BOSTON (AP) - A legal disciplinary board has recommended that former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran be disbarred for his conviction on a federal obstruction of justice charge.

Finneran's law license was temporarily suspended in 2007 after he pleaded guilty in federal court to lying about his role in a redistricting plan that diluted the clout of minority voters.

The recommendation made Friday by the Board of Bar Overseers will be sent to the state Supreme Judicial Court, which will have the ultimate say on what discipline Finneran receives.

A three-member panel of the board had recommended a two-year suspension. But the Office of the Bar Counsel, which prosecutes attorney misconduct cases, recommended disbarment, which would mean he could not practice law in Massachusetts again.

Oh, by the way:

Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Finneran recommended that the once-powerful figure on Beacon Hill receive 18 months of unsupervised probation and a $25,000 fine. In return, Finneran agreed not to run for any elected political position in state, federal or municipal government for five years after his sentencing date. The US Attorney's office agreed to dismiss three counts of perjury against Finneran.

 

[noose4]

no such thing as a Democrat party.

 

[Annie]

Why blacks should really hate the Democratic Party:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Summer 2005

Yes, it was welfare that caused the break up of the black nuclear family, which for hundreds of years, through more stressors than the 50's or 60's had been stronger than white families. Unintended consequences of laws that required no male adult in home, made it a no-brainer in retrospect that the absent male was going to fly the coop. True injustice to all.

The following of course mentions Patrick Moynihan who was light years ahead of most:

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
Kay S. Hymowitz

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.

Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.

Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.

Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.

Convinced that “the Negro revolution . . . , a movement for equality as well as for liberty,” was now at risk, Moynihan wanted to make several arguments in his report. The first was empirical and would quickly become indisputable: single-parent families were on the rise in the ghetto. But other points were more speculative and sparked a partisan dispute that has lasted to this day. Moynihan argued that the rise in single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture that could be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. Though black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had already introduced the idea in the 1930s, Moynihan’s argument defied conventional social-science wisdom. As he wrote later, “The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what ‘everyone knew’: that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so.”

But Moynihan went much further than merely overthrowing familiar explanations about the cause of poverty. He also described, through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior. Moynihan may have borrowed the term “pathology” from Kenneth Clark’s The Dark Ghetto, also published that year. But as both a descendant and a scholar of what he called “the wild Irish slums”—he had written a chapter on the poor Irish in the classic Beyond the Melting Pot—the assistant secretary of labor was no stranger to ghetto self-destruction. He knew the dangers it posed to “the basic socializing unit” of the family. And he suspected that the risks were magnified in the case of blacks, since their “matriarchal” family had the effect of abandoning men, leaving them adrift and “alienated.”

More than most social scientists, Moynihan, steeped in history and anthropology, understood what families do. They “shape their children’s character and ability,” he wrote....

 

[Rinata]

Why don't you people give it a rest??

 

[California Girl]

Why don't you people give it a rest??

Gee, I don't know... maybe it's in response to the 'why all blacks hate the republican party' thread? Or is that thread ok?

 

[rightwinger]

If a Republican issued these words, instead of Democrat Harry Reid there would be hell:

as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Many Democrats opposed the abolition of slavery, and not just the one's in the South either:
The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the Northern United States (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. Republicans started calling antiwar Democrats "copperheads", likening them to the poisonous snake. The Peace Democrats accepted the label, but for them the copper "head" was the likeness of Liberty, which they cut from copper pennies proudly wore as badges. [1]

The Copperheads had numerous important newspapers, but the editors never formed an alliance. In Chicago, Wilbur F. Storey made the Chicago Times into Lincoln's most vituperative enemy. The New York Journal of Commerce, originally abolitionist, was sold to owners who became Copperheads, giving them an important voice in the largest city. A typical editor was Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania Genius of Liberty. He was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw black people as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce. Although he supported the war effort in 1861, he blamed abolitionists for prolonging the war and denounced the government as increasingly despotic. By 1864 he was calling for peace at any price.

Hell, look at the overwhelming percentage of Democrats compared to Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act:
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 Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Responding to allegations that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist, the Kennedy administration agreed to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap private individuals, including Martin Luther King, Jr. This continued under Democrat Lyndon Johnson by the way.

Some day, when everyone has an opportunity to read and learn history, and realize today who the Democrats are, they will agree that Democrats are the Party of racism against blacks, bar none.

Always have been, always will be...........

Thanks for your historical perspective Titanic...

An overwhelming majority of Southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights. They were so outraged at LBJ for passing the Civil Rights act that they changed parties. Which party do you think they selected????

Why the Republican Party of course!

 

[rightwinger]

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, was the last straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean Democrats like Robert Byrd? Isn't he the only one still in the Senate who voted on the Civil Rights Act?

The Democratic Party has virtually destroyed the Black population in this country, enacting program after program based on paternalism and misguided notions. It has sapped all the vitality out of that population. This is why when you see a succesful Black businessman he is likely to be a Republican. When you see a party hack, he is likely to be a Democrat.

 

[Annie]

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, was the last straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't know if you are just being silly or ignorant:

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- Opinion Central -- GOPUSA

The Democrats, with overwhelming majority in legislature, didn't have enough votes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If a Republican issued these words, instead of Democrat Harry Reid there would be hell:

as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Many Democrats opposed the abolition of slavery, and not just the one's in the South either:
The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the Northern United States (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates. Republicans started calling antiwar Democrats "copperheads", likening them to the poisonous snake. The Peace Democrats accepted the label, but for them the copper "head" was the likeness of Liberty, which they cut from copper pennies proudly wore as badges. [1]

The Copperheads had numerous important newspapers, but the editors never formed an alliance. In Chicago, Wilbur F. Storey made the Chicago Times into Lincoln's most vituperative enemy. The New York Journal of Commerce, originally abolitionist, was sold to owners who became Copperheads, giving them an important voice in the largest city. A typical editor was Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania Genius of Liberty. He was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw black people as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce. Although he supported the war effort in 1861, he blamed abolitionists for prolonging the war and denounced the government as increasingly despotic. By 1864 he was calling for peace at any price.

Hell, look at the overwhelming percentage of Democrats compared to Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act:
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 Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Responding to allegations that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist, the Kennedy administration agreed to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation wiretap private individuals, including Martin Luther King, Jr. This continued under Democrat Lyndon Johnson by the way.

Some day, when everyone has an opportunity to read and learn history, and realize today who the Democrats are, they will agree that Democrats are the Party of racism against blacks, bar none.

Always have been, always will be...........

This idiocy just won't die.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The idiocy of facts and truth??????

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idiocy of facts and truth??????

The idiocy that the Democratic party of today is the conservative wing of the Democratic party of 1964.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Ok, sure. So Right Winger says everyone who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 is a now Republican. Got a link that shows that fact? hahahaha

Or is this just another lie from the Obama nut gulper?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I have no idea what you are babbling about NY

 

[Annie]

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, was the last straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't know if you are just being silly or ignorant:

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- Opinion Central -- GOPUSA

The Democrats, with overwhelming majority in legislature, didn't have enough votes.

Bump for NY...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, and the Republican party promptly rewarded him the same year by nominating him for president.

And which states did he manage to win? Mostly those solidly Democratic states in the South.
Those were Southern CONSERVATIVE Democrats voting with their feet...

...to leave the Democratic party.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I read the same BS. Most rural folks are Republicans period. How does that equate to the South? Who wrote that wikipedia excuse? Right Winger?


Did any of you apologists see this:

Today, Southern Democrats are conservative Democrats who follow the principles of strong foreign policy, fiscal responsibility and support for legislating traditional values.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

so today's Democrats are the same Democrats. Thanks you. The management.