Well worth the time and effort

[maineman]

Do you deny that the democratic party uses as a point to garner votes the fact that IT is the party that "cares" and provided billions in handouts?

and I absolutely deny that democrats provide billions in "handouts" as a means of "garnering" the votes of black americans.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and I absolutely deny that democrats provide billions in "handouts" as a means of "garnering" the votes of black americans.

Then your either lying or delusional.... I will assume delusional.

As to your suggesting trying is these guys is bad.... Who was it that has in other threads insisted that if someone doesn't follow HIS script to the T, then they are opposed to what ever the thread might have been about?

Tell ya what , go buy Forge of Freedom and we can fight each other there. I will even take the South since you keep claiming I am racist. Your likely to win as the North is pretty strong in the "historical" scenario.

 

[maineman]

I think trying these guys is GOOD.

And social policy is not developed simply to "garner" votes. believing that is not delusional....

 

[musicman]

I am not twisting your words in any way. It is you who suggested that a group of Americans have routinely continued to vote for a political party that hates and devalues them. How ******* stupid do you have to be to do something like THAT?

I'd say a significant number of Americans are politically manipulated at one time or another; in fact, I'd hazard a guess that that number hovers somewhere in the neighborhood of 100%. Do you imagine that I'm letting MYSELF off the hook here? The Republican Party has been playing it cute with conservative America for forty years now - and in all that time, we've managed to field exactly ONE conservative president. Hearing what one wants to hear is a HUMAN failing; it transcends race, gender, age, and ideology. If you perceive that as stupid, allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire human race.

Well gosh...I dunno....maybe it was just magic...or maybe it was because the democratic party nationally, and the democratic administration pushed for and got passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. (and the fact that some republican northerners helped did not change the perception in the south that it was the democrats who "let them blacks ride in the front of the bus and sit in the same classrooms with our clean white daughters"

I don't know what in hell you want me or anybody else to do about PERCEPTIONS. I think we've already established that these are susceptible to manipulation; I think YOU provide an excellent case in point.

If you want to make believe that state's rights is not a code word for segregation, go right ahead. I posted the quote from Wallace. Read it and weep

You're not even trying to be rational. WALLACE WAS A DEMOCRAT. And, the belief that states' rights was code for segregation appears to have been a fantasy held and nurtured by DEMOCRATS. No one harboring this view ever made an inch of headway in the Republican Party, my friend.

You KNOW it is more than that. It wasn't just "Mississippi" that the man, who was born in Illinois and who became Governor of California, chose as the place to announce his candidacy for president. It was Philadelphia, Mississippi , where three meddling college students trying to foist voter's rights for blacks were MURDERED and, at the time of Ronnie's speech sixteen years later, they had NOT been brought to justice.

There's only one problem with this assertion: it's not true. Ronald Reagan declared his candidacy in Washington, D.C., in 1979. Philadelphia, MS, was ONE CAMPAIGN STOP - one of MANY. He made a SPEECH there. I've read excerpts from that speech; he spoke - as I have - of states' rights as the bedrock of our constitutional form of government. Am I a racist, too?

And, while we're at it, let's look at the nature of the campaign trail. A candidate goes where he is sent by his party's national committee, in an effort to find support, is he not? Should the Republican Party have ignored Philadelphia because something terrible had happened there - something that YOU YOURSELF admit had not yet been adjudicated? Is the Party to be condemned as racist code-masters because they didn't have a crystal ball? Damn, man - your litmus test is HARD!

It was a town of enormous symbolic importance: "you northerners stay the hell out of here cuz we in Mississippi believe we have a right to do whatever we have to to keep things the way they are and to keep those black men in their place and even if you force a trial, ain't no group of twelve white men in Philadelphia Mississippi ever gonna convict a white man for killing a black man" THIS town, of ALL towns in America, Ronald Reagan chose to announce his candidacy for president... and made sure to use "states rights" in his speech often.

Well - again - I'm at a loss as to what to do about your perceptions, particularly when they branch out into full-blown fantasy. Maybe you should get out among people more - see fewer movies. Civil Rights protection became the law of the land in 1964.

I have never once tried to suggest that there were no racists in my party or that my party had not, at one time, embraced southern racism. Wallace and Byrd were and are anomalies in my party.

What a shame that you can't afford the same understanding of human frailty to the Republican Party. But you seem to have it in your head that we all meet secretly in cellars, speaking code. And, without a shred of proof. Your arguments cannot withstand rationality, and yet you cling to them. I honestly don't know what to tell you.

What do you have besides your bizarre opinion that the overwhelming majority of blacks in America are unaware of what YOU seem to see so clearly: that the democrats - according to YOU -continue to hate, devalue, and cynically manipulate them?

I repeat - susceptibility to political manipulation - the desirability of hearing what one wants to hear - is no respecter of persons. If it's stupid, we're ALL stupid.

and then get your feathers all ruffled when I suggest that an entire race of people would have to be pretty ******* stupid to not see what was so clear to you if it were, in fact,

Don't worry about MY feathers, maineman - they're smooth as glass. But, I believe in straight talk, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't color my words with your perceptions.

Oh... and tell me again: Who is the U.S. Senate Minority Whip?

Why, it's Trent Lott, of course. You know - that pathetic, powerless little figurehead in a party that has not yet figured out whether it's going to shit or go blind.

 

[maineman]

I'd say a significant number of Americans are politically manipulated at one time or another; in fact, I'd hazard a guess that that number hovers somewhere in the neighborhood of 100%. Do you imagine that I'm letting MYSELF off the hook here? The Republican Party has been playing it cute with conservative America for forty years now - and in all that time, we've managed to field exactly ONE conservative president. Hearing what one wants to hear is a HUMAN failing; it transcends race, gender, age, and ideology. If you perceive that as stupid, allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire human race.

I must admit that I do not have such a negative view as you do of the American people in general, or African American people in specific. We will simply have to agree to disagree.


I don't know what in hell you want me or anybody else to do about PERCEPTIONS. I think we've already established that these are susceptible to manipulation; I think YOU provide an excellent case in point.

no. YOU have asserted that Americans in general and African Americans in specific are particularly susceptible to manipulation at the hands of of politicians. Again, I do not hold such a negative view

You're not even trying to be rational. WALLACE WAS A DEMOCRAT. And, the belief that states' rights was code for segregation appears to have been a fantasy held and nurtured by DEMOCRATS. No one harboring this view ever made an inch of headway in the Republican Party, my friend.

and the fact that he was a democrat, somehow makes "states rights" LESS of a code word for segregation? I am sorry. You'll have to do better than that. I have already agreed that my party - especially in the south - was once filled with racists. I am suggesting that YOUR party still is...and the comments by your demi-god, Ronnie Reagan are damning, not only for their content, but also for their venue. It was just a ******* COINCIDENCE that Ronnie made state's rights a highlight of his first speech after his nomination for the presidency in Philadelphia-*******-Mississippi??? Here's a clue" DENIAL ain't no ******* river in Egypt!



And, while we're at it, let's look at the nature of the campaign trail. A candidate goes where he is sent by his party's national committee, in an effort to find support, is he not? Should the Republican Party have ignored Philadelphia because something terrible had happened there - something that YOU YOURSELF admit had not yet been adjudicated? Is the Party to be condemned as racist code-masters because they didn't have a crystal ball? Damn, man - your litmus test is HARD!

only suggest that the timing and preeminence given to Philadelphia Mississippi and the inclusion of "state's rights" in his speech - which we have already established is code for segregation - as explicitly stated by one of the south's most notorious racists - is not a coincidence

Well - again - I'm at a loss as to what to do about your perceptions, particularly when they branch out into full-blown fantasy. Maybe you should get out among people more - see fewer movies. Civil Rights protection became the law of the land in 1964.

oh yeah...and racism magically disappeared the instant it did..and segregation and its continuation in the face of the law all of a sudden became a non-issue for southern whites. duh.

What a shame that you can't afford the same understanding of human frailty to the Republican Party. But you seem to have it in your head that we all meet secretly in cellars, speaking code. And, without a shred of proof. Your arguments cannot withstand rationality, and yet you cling to them. I honestly don't know what to tell you.
I most certainly do NOT think that you all meet secretly in cellars. I have shown explicitly where "state's rights" was admitted to be a code word by one of the south's most notorious racist. I have shown where Ronnie kicked off his presidential campaigns in Philadelphia Mississippi of ALL places and where "state's rights" was prominently mentioned in that speech. That is not conjecture. You can only attempt to mitigate the damning nature of it...but, by all means, do try.

I repeat - susceptibility to political manipulation - the desirability of hearing what one wants to hear - is no respecter of persons. If it's stupid, we're ALL stupid.
speak for yourself. What gives you the right to claim that 90% of African Americans vote against their own self interest because THEY TOO are stupid?

Don't worry about MY feathers, maineman - they're smooth as glass. But, I believe in straight talk, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't color my words with your perceptions.

I also believe in straight talk. For you to dismiss the importance of Reagan's speech - or Lott's speech - OR HUMPHEY'S SPEECH FOR THAT MATTER - is anything BUT straight talk

Why, it's Trent Lott, of course. You know - that pathetic, powerless little figurehead in a party that has not yet figured out whether it's going to shit or go blind.

your characterization of the republican party, not mine. You do admit, however, that publicly stating that America would be better off today if we had elected a racist bigoted segregationist as president is certainly NOT considered a bar to leadership in the republican party. That was my point as well.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You don't even listen or read what is said.... Your the one that "agreed" States rights was somehow a code for segregation. No one else here has, well except now all your liberal buddies will chime in with " oh it is, it is"

Reagan was elected in 1980, segregation was dead by then and nearly buried. In fact the ONLY place you will find institutionalized segregation is in Black studies facilities on US major campuses. Created not BY whites but by Blacks. Well and the black caucas in the Congress.

States Rights IS part of the Constitution, always has been and probably always will be. It is codified in the Senate, ensuring every State has an equal voice. It is codified in the House ensuring every State has at least one representative and it is Codified in the Electoral College to ensure a couple large States can not rule this Country, but that all States play a part.

The 10th Amendment SPECIFICALLY talks about States rights , as does the 2nd Amendment.Article IV of the Constitution is an entire section on States rights.

here let me refresh your memory....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

The Constitution has the Preamble, 7 numbered sections and the amendments. One of those 7 sections deals with nothing BUT States rights. Each of the branches of the Federal Government only have one section as well. So remind me again how States rights is code for anything OTHER than, well the rights of the Individual States?

 

[musicman]

maineman:

I believe that posts #24 and #25 sum up our respective presentations - in the matters of accuracy, rationality, and intellectual honesty - quite acceptably. I am content to let them stand.