You Liberal Yankees shoulda let us go and keep the slaves

[bodecea]

Or at least not pushed civil rights. LOL

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

Well, the South shouldn't have started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

 

[mgh80]

Well, dean, in honesty I started the thread for laughs. But, it is ironic that but for the south, which consistently elects only whites (or Asian) quasi libertarians or big govt republicans, the dems would have both congress and the WH. LBJ had that infamous quote about blacks voting dem ... well that didn't work out so well since the south has been the gop's base since Nixon. And southern states continue to have higher than avg % of African American voters. I continue to believe that public accommodation laws and racial quotas have been more harmful than helpful to race relations, but it's not debatable that they absolutely killed dems in the south.

In my state alone:

Voted for Obama (twice)
Rubio (1/2 of the US Senate)
3/27 Representatives are black (11% close to the actual % in the state)

I'm not going to go through every state but I know that Virginia and North Carolina also voted for Obama, there's Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley wants the Confederate flag removed from public property, J. Bush removed it from here.

No matter what the South does there's always going to be people like you who assume you know the culture. Is there racism here? Absolutely. Having lived in Buffalo, Long Island, and Florida...I can tell you I saw MUCH more racism on Long Island and Buffalo than I ever have here.

If you're ignorant to the Southern way of living--don't comment on it like you're not.

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

Have you ever heard of a police officer in South Carolina by the name of Walter Scott? Or maybe someone named Dylann Roof?

Are you suggesting that there aren't some white people in the North who kill black people? Anybody can point at a few extreme examples--that doesn't make it the norm. You are aware of that right?

I wasn't considering it a norm...I was replying to this statement:

Never saw evidence of racism while I was there.

And you think that that poster saw that?

 

[my2¢]

Yeah those Republicans are always starting wars with their heads up their ass concerning consequences.

 

[mgh80]

Yeah those Republicans are always starting wars with their heads up their ass concerning consequences.

Democrats have started more wars/military conflicts than the Republicans have in the past century, hate to break it to you.

 

[occupied]

Slavery would have eventually become less cost-effective, anyway. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, they would have just gotten higher-paying jobs operating the machines.

All those people killed in the Civil War for nothing. Just because some Yankees got a bug up their ass.

The war was entirely necessary because the South had no intention of confining slavery to the secession states. They had a dream of becoming an exporter of slaves and spreading the practice to the west, further south and anywhere else they could develop a market for their surplus slaves. Had the South simply been allowed to secede (ignoring their ambitions of conquering northward) the institution of slavery would have easily survived into the 20th century. Even today there are people who are slave-like in all the places they wanted to set up markets in South America and the Caribbean.

 

[occupied]

Yeah those Republicans are always starting wars with their heads up their ass concerning consequences.

Democrats have started more wars/military conflicts than the Republicans have in the past century, hate to break it to you.

America's wars must be divided into Pre-MIC and Post-MIC. Since the defense establishment became so politically powerful it becomes clear that the Republicans are their greatest water carriers.

 

[JGalt]

Slavery would have eventually become less cost-effective, anyway. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, they would have just gotten higher-paying jobs operating the machines.

All those people killed in the Civil War for nothing. Just because some Yankees got a bug up their ass.

The war was entirely necessary because the South had no intention of confining slavery to the secession states. They had a dream of becoming an exporter of slaves and spreading the practice to the west, further south and anywhere else they could develop a market for their surplus slaves. Had the South simply been allowed to secede (ignoring their ambitions of conquering northward) the institution of slavery would have easily survived into the 20th century. Even today there are people who are slave-like in all the places they wanted to set up markets in South America and the Caribbean.

And yet the North relied on all those goods the South was producing - Cotton, sugar, tobacco, rice, fruits and vegetables, raw materials for the manufacture of metals, hemp for rope. They were feeding the South's need for slavery in as much as Mexico, Central, and South America is feeding this country's desire to get doped up.

 

[occupied]

Slavery would have eventually become less cost-effective, anyway. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, they would have just gotten higher-paying jobs operating the machines.

All those people killed in the Civil War for nothing. Just because some Yankees got a bug up their ass.

The war was entirely necessary because the South had no intention of confining slavery to the secession states. They had a dream of becoming an exporter of slaves and spreading the practice to the west, further south and anywhere else they could develop a market for their surplus slaves. Had the South simply been allowed to secede (ignoring their ambitions of conquering northward) the institution of slavery would have easily survived into the 20th century. Even today there are people who are slave-like in all the places they wanted to set up markets in South America and the Caribbean.

And yet the North relied on all those goods the South was producing - Cotton, sugar, tobacco, rice, fruits and vegetables, raw materials for the manufacture of metals, hemp for rope. They were feeding the South's need for slavery in as much as Mexico, Central, and South America is feeding this country's desire to get doped up.

The war occurred because the north sought to confine slavery to the South, not because it was totally against it's economic benefits. The South knew slavery was doomed unless it was spread further. They had exhausted their soil with cotton and had a multitude of excess slaves. The Missouri compromise led directly to an unorganized invasion of Kansas as the South sought to press their way of life on the new territories. It was just a warm-up for the proto-fascist practice of conquest and social engineering the South so desperately needed to continue their treasured traditions. Slavery was dying only because it was confined.

 

[hipeter924]

In my state alone:

Voted for Obama (twice)
Rubio (1/2 of the US Senate)
3/27 Representatives are black (11% close to the actual % in the state)

I'm not going to go through every state but I know that Virginia and North Carolina also voted for Obama, there's Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley wants the Confederate flag removed from public property, J. Bush removed it from here.

No matter what the South does there's always going to be people like you who assume you know the culture. Is there racism here? Absolutely. Having lived in Buffalo, Long Island, and Florida...I can tell you I saw MUCH more racism on Long Island and Buffalo than I ever have here.

If you're ignorant to the Southern way of living--don't comment on it like you're not.

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

Have you ever heard of a police officer in South Carolina by the name of Walter Scott? Or maybe someone named Dylann Roof?

Are you suggesting that there aren't some white people in the North who kill black people? Anybody can point at a few extreme examples--that doesn't make it the norm. You are aware of that right?

I wasn't considering it a norm...I was replying to this statement:

Never saw evidence of racism while I was there.

And you think that that poster saw that?

I think that Nyvin is picking hairs, and I didn't bother to respond earlier, as my post implied when I visited I didn't see x, not that x doesn't exist.

 

[Nyvin]

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

Have you ever heard of a police officer in South Carolina by the name of Walter Scott? Or maybe someone named Dylann Roof?

Are you suggesting that there aren't some white people in the North who kill black people? Anybody can point at a few extreme examples--that doesn't make it the norm. You are aware of that right?

I wasn't considering it a norm...I was replying to this statement:

Never saw evidence of racism while I was there.

And you think that that poster saw that?

I think that Nyvin is picking hairs, and I didn't bother to respond earlier, as my post implied when I visited I didn't see x, not that x doesn't exist.

After reading this post

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

You'd think that the South was a racist-free paradise. I can guarantee you that's pretty darn far from the truth.

Of course you're making pointless generalizations of a geographic area with a large group of people from a trip lasting a few days.....so I can't expect much.

 

[Misty]

Politico???

RFLMAO!!! You lost as soon as you pulled out that left- wing rag. It's not a valid source.

You can't say it's wrong just because you don't like the source. And if you feel it's wrong, point out where.

It's wrong because it was democrats who voted time and time against civil rights for blacks.

 

[Kosh]

Or at least not pushed civil rights. LOL

How the South Skews America - Michael Lind - POLITICO Magazine

Well, the South shouldn't have started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

Sounds like what the far left does when they don't get their way..

 

[Misty]

Not pushed civil rights? You mean deny blacks the voting rights southern whites already have?

Just one example of many.
"9. The 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act were signed into law by President Eisenhower who also established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1958, a commission that was rejected by Truman during his administration."


Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

 

[Nyvin]

Politico???

RFLMAO!!! You lost as soon as you pulled out that left- wing rag. It's not a valid source.

You can't say it's wrong just because you don't like the source. And if you feel it's wrong, point out where.

It's wrong because it was democrats who voted time and time against civil rights for blacks.

Here's the worn out half-dead horse argument now....

Let's hear it, how were the southern Democrats of 60-100+ years ago liberal?

 

[hipeter924]

Have you ever heard of a police officer in South Carolina by the name of Walter Scott? Or maybe someone named Dylann Roof?

Are you suggesting that there aren't some white people in the North who kill black people? Anybody can point at a few extreme examples--that doesn't make it the norm. You are aware of that right?

I wasn't considering it a norm...I was replying to this statement:

Never saw evidence of racism while I was there.

And you think that that poster saw that?

I think that Nyvin is picking hairs, and I didn't bother to respond earlier, as my post implied when I visited I didn't see x, not that x doesn't exist.

After reading this post

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

You'd think that the South was a racist-free paradise. I can guarantee you that's pretty darn far from the truth.

Of course you're making pointless generalizations of a geographic area with a large group of people from a trip lasting a few days.....so I can't expect much.

*yawn* Someone is over-sensitive, and you don't even know what you are talking about. I have a Spanish friend who lives in the South, what you are raging about is a load of crap.

Take a chill pill, I said a majority of Southerners aren't racist, and I never saw racism while I was there, not that there is no racism in the South.

 

[Kosh]

Slavery would have eventually become less cost-effective, anyway. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, they would have just gotten higher-paying jobs operating the machines.

All those people killed in the Civil War for nothing. Just because some Yankees got a bug up their ass.

The war was entirely necessary because the South had no intention of confining slavery to the secession states. They had a dream of becoming an exporter of slaves and spreading the practice to the west, further south and anywhere else they could develop a market for their surplus slaves. Had the South simply been allowed to secede (ignoring their ambitions of conquering northward) the institution of slavery would have easily survived into the 20th century. Even today there are people who are slave-like in all the places they wanted to set up markets in South America and the Caribbean.

And yet the North relied on all those goods the South was producing - Cotton, sugar, tobacco, rice, fruits and vegetables, raw materials for the manufacture of metals, hemp for rope. They were feeding the South's need for slavery in as much as Mexico, Central, and South America is feeding this country's desire to get doped up.

The war occurred because the north sought to confine slavery to the South, not because it was totally against it's economic benefits. The South knew slavery was doomed unless it was spread further. They had exhausted their soil with cotton and had a multitude of excess slaves. The Missouri compromise led directly to an unorganized invasion of Kansas as the South sought to press their way of life on the new territories. It was just a warm-up for the proto-fascist practice of conquest and social engineering the South so desperately needed to continue their treasured traditions. Slavery was dying only because it was confined.

Darn those Democrats!

The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election.

Disagreements over slavery caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse. In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.

 

[Kosh]

Politico???

RFLMAO!!! You lost as soon as you pulled out that left- wing rag. It's not a valid source.

You can't say it's wrong just because you don't like the source. And if you feel it's wrong, point out where.

It's wrong because it was democrats who voted time and time against civil rights for blacks.

Here's the worn out half-dead horse argument now....

Let's hear it, how were the southern Democrats of 60-100+ years ago liberal?

Democrats are not liberals now, so you must be confused. But most far left drones are..

 

[Kosh]

Are you suggesting that there aren't some white people in the North who kill black people? Anybody can point at a few extreme examples--that doesn't make it the norm. You are aware of that right?

I wasn't considering it a norm...I was replying to this statement:

Never saw evidence of racism while I was there.

And you think that that poster saw that?

I think that Nyvin is picking hairs, and I didn't bother to respond earlier, as my post implied when I visited I didn't see x, not that x doesn't exist.

After reading this post

Having visited both North Carolina and South Carolina, most of the people there are overly polite and courteous, even if it was a short stop in both places for a few days. Never saw evidence of racism while I was there. But I have seen plenty of it in D.C and Maryland, including racist-acting Federal police in the so-called liberal heartland.

Kissing a black guy gives you disgusted looks around central D.C, whereas kissing a white guy doesn't. If your friend is black, and he's driving, the Federal police look at the driver as if he is drug dealer or doing something potentially illegal with a white guy - and that was shocking as I had never seen actual racism before. Never had that issue in the South though.

You'd think that the South was a racist-free paradise. I can guarantee you that's pretty darn far from the truth.

Of course you're making pointless generalizations of a geographic area with a large group of people from a trip lasting a few days.....so I can't expect much.

*yawn* Someone is over-sensitive, and you don't even know what you are talking about. I have a Spanish friend who lives in the South, what you are raging about is a load of crap.

Take a chill pill, I said a majority of Southerners aren't racist, and I never saw racism while I was there, not that there is no racism in the South.

Racism is not endemic to the South. Despite what the far left wants everyone to believe..