If reparations are paid to black Americans, they should come from the democrat party......obviously.

[hadit]

Those slaves were treated humanely, unlike how whites treated their slaves.

Cool story, bro. Needs more dragons.

 

[Hellbilly]

Cool story, bro. Needs more dragons.

Your ignorance is showing.

 

[hadit]

Your ignorance is showing.

Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. Why are you defending it?

 

[Hellbilly]

Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. Why are you defending it?

Not all slaves were treated the way your kin treated them.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Not all slaves were treated the way your kin treated them.

There is a good way to treat slaves?

 

[hadit]

Not all slaves were treated the way your kin treated them.

Source that, please. And while you're doing that, are you defending the practice of owning other people, destroying their homes and families and forcing them to work for you, as long as they're treated "humanely"?

 

[Hellbilly]

Source that, please. And while you're doing that, are you defending the practice of owning other people, destroying their homes and families and forcing them to work for you, as long as they're treated "humanely"?

Why should I? I already know. You're the one that doesn't. Do your own research.

 

[hadit]

Why should I? I already know. You're the one that doesn't. Do your own research.

You made the claim.

 

[Hellbilly]

You made the claim.

Yep.

 

[Failzero]

Communists are teh Enemy today

 

[hadit]

Yep.

So it's on you to back it up.

 

[Hellbilly]

So it's on you to back it up.

Nope.

 

[hadit]

Nope.

Then it will remain merely your unsupported assertion.

 

[Hellbilly]

Then it will remain merely your unsupported assertion.

I know the truth.

 

[hadit]

I know the truth.

You know what you believe, but you can't expect to persuade anyone if all you do is state it as fact. Post your source so it can be validated.

 

[DudleySmith]

You and other black Americans voted for Johnson.......the actual racist....vs.....Goldwater, the actual Civil Rights hero....and you have paid for that mistake with the lives of your children ever since......

LBJ’s Democratic Plantation › American Greatness
LBJ’s Democratic Plantation › American Greatness
there is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.


Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics

Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.

---

http://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/B...ights-Act-San-Francisco/2014/07/18/id/583541/

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/uncategorized/urban-legend-goldwater-against-civil-rights/

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]
His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

lol retarded rubbish. You never read Caro's three volume bio, either.

 

[JohnReese]

No, slavery was made legal in America. Africans did buy Africans then ship them here.. Whites had guns and used them to get captives. Blacks are owed reparations and segregation still continues covertly right now, so does white racism and the harm it causes. You are an example. So if the government can pay others for things that happened in the 1800's it can pay blacks and it will pay blacks.

Africans enslaved their people and sold them to the highest bidders. If blacks want reparations? They should go to the source. You know, Africa.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Reparations going to people who were never slaves, taken from people who never owned slaves.....but to be more specific....people who were born hundreds of years after slavery...............is just dumb....

However, if any group needs to pay reparations...it should be the democrat party...

But if the supporters of reparations are right and that some restitution must be made, it becomes obvious who should do it: the Democratic Party. Indeed, it is an objective fact that the Democratic Party is intimately tied to slavery and segregation. The Democratic Party was founded by Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, himself a slaveowner, and Martin Van Buren, a New Yorker who owned at least one slave and exploited enslaved labor. More importantly, Van Buren’s plan gained the support of southern politicians for his policies in exchange for his support of the “peculiar institution” of plantation slavery. Such politicians became so numerous they had a name: doughfaces, since their characters lacked all substance.

This pattern continued through the end of the Civil War and the early 20th century. After the Civil War, Democratic politicians in the southern U.S. supported segregationalist policies that brutally infringed upon the rights and dignity of African-Americans.

As a result of this history, the Democratic Party should provide reparations, not the descendants of one class deemed politically expendable. Still, you may say, “that was the Democratic Party of the mid-19th century. So much has changed since then that the current officeholders and politicians could not possibly bear any blame for what their forebears did.” This is true, but it is also true of the American people.


Today, the American people are not directly responsible for slavery, segregation, Indian removal (also Van Buren), and a host of other injustices for which prominent Democrats ask for reparations. Moreover, the American people are being forced to pay for more spending programs, up to and including reparations. How is it any fairer to ask the American people to accept another raise in their taxes to fix a problem the progenitors of the Democratic Party started? Shouldn’t that be at least acknowledged?

If Anybody Should Pay Reparations, It's The Democrat Party

If anyone should pay reparations to blacks for the injustices of slavery, it should be the institutions that preserved slavery's legacy.

thefederalist.com

How about southern states? Let’s make southern states pay reparations since they were for slavery. Democrats were supported by white southerners , so let white southerners for the bill for the racism.
Here’s how stupid your argument is. Most blacks are Democrats. So now you want Black people to pay reparations to themselves. Yeah ok.

Of course you’re not going to like my plan because the confederate states look just like trump country.

 

[hadit]

How about southern states? Let’s make southern states pay reparations since they were for slavery. Democrats were supported by white southerners , so let white southerners for the bill for the racism.
Here’s how stupid your argument is. Most blacks are Democrats. So now you want Black people to pay reparations to themselves. Yeah ok.

Of course you’re not going to like my plan because the confederate states look just like trump country.

Here's where the whole thing falls apart. There are white people today who have former slaves in their ancestral tree, which makes them descendants of slaves. There are also black people today who arrived in the US well after slavery and even Jim Crow was done away with. Giving reparations to descendants of slaves, therefore, sets up one of three scenarios:

1. Some white people will receive reparations while some black people will not. This will obviously drive some people absolutely bonkers. Think riots, looting, pillaging and burning things. People getting hurt, that sort of thing.
2. They will realize it's nearly impossible to give reparations only to descendants of slaves (see #1) and will admit the truth, that the payments are to be given out on the basis of skin color and you will have to be visually inspected to qualify for a payment.
3. White people will identify as black to qualify for payments (see #2) and reject visual inspection because objective truth no longer determines anything about a person. The system clogs up and falls apart.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

There were some notable defections of far right Democrats to the Republican party. Jesse Helms, for one.

But the migration of far right voters from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party was mostly from attrition.

The sons and daughters of the old right wing Democrats grew up to be Republicans.

Sure they did Skippy . Sure they did.