Why should blacks become republicans?

[Humorme]

So, "token" is someone that is there PURELY based on skin color? Is that how you are using the term?


Steele does not seem to be that. I saw him on several TV programs. He seemed competent and pretty much exactly what I would expect from a GOP establishment.


So, Like I asked,



WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

 

[rightwinger]

So, "token" is someone that is there PURELY based on skin color? Is that how you are using the term?


Steele does not seem to be that. I saw him on several TV programs. He seemed competent and pretty much exactly what I would expect from a GOP establishment.


So, Like I asked,



WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

RW, did you miss this?

I have already addressed twice......you just don’t like the answer

Steele was a token party leader to counteract an Obama candidacy

Look...we got blacks too

Not an attempt at diversity, an attempt to address the Obama candidacy


Now, bookmark this response and refer to it the next time you claim I didn’t address your comment

Why does the supposed immediate motivation by Obama, negate the "Diversity" of having a black person in charge of the RNC?


I'm serious RW, I am having trouble following the distinctions being drawn here.

 

[rightwinger]

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

 

[hadit]

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

And, of course, the biggest difference is that there is no Constitutional right to immigrate illegally to America, while there is a Constitutional right to own and use firearms.

 

[Humorme]

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

 

[Humorme]

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

Exactly. There is no intention whatsoever to give credit where it is due. The path is set, they must insist that Republicans are racist and will never waver from that mantra. The truth simply didn't matter.

Notice that they are reduced to insisting they know what somebody really means when they say something. When racism isn't there, they have to invent it.

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

And, of course, the biggest difference is that there is no Constitutional right to immigrate illegally to America, while there is a Constitutional right to own and use firearms.

There is not a damn thing in the entire Constitution about coming here legally.

There are seven words in the Constitution regarding the federal government's role with respect to foreigners:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

That is it. Period. End of discussion. Who comes and goes within a state is the state's prerogative under our de jure (legal) Constitution. It is not until a person applies for citizenship does the federal government's jurisdiction even come into play. You are reading things into the Constitution that simply are not there.

Consider, if you will, the fact that states had control over who came and went within their borders until every founding father was dead and buried.

For example, it would not be until 1876 (damn near a full century from when the Constitution was ratified) before the state's jurisdiction over who came and went in their respective states became a problem. Then, in the case of Chy Lung v Freeman, the United States Supreme Court granted "plenary powers" to Congress over all aspects of immigration. Two things of note here:

1) The Constitution of the United States does NOT give the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant to any other branch of government any powers to another branch of government and

2) In the Chy Lung v Freeman case, according to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, (SEE THERE, WHO CAME AND WENT WAS REGULATED BY THE STATE) and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

This is only part 1 of the story.

 

[Humorme]

Republicans are perceived as being racist due to their immigration proposals. So, let us suppose that I side with you and say their immigration policies are not racist.

The Republicans would then be in love with a ONE WORLD, ONE RACE, ONE RELIGION TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

Maybe the Republicans have bought into their own propaganda. If so, they are headed down the same road as the Democrats. Why are they fighting each other?

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

Maybe you should think outside the box and ask yourself WHY America allows known crazy people to roam our streets unsupervised. Just this week, a guy in Tennessee, who had been arrested for jumping the fence at the White House and posing a threat to those inside was able to shoot and kill four people.

Registration didn't help those people. But, had that KNOWN nutjob been in a mental institution, four people would be alive today. Registering guns or humans is for people who have no use for Liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

Most Republicans I'm aware of want immigration law to be enforced. They just want to know who's coming in and who's staying.

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

Maybe you should think outside the box and ask yourself WHY America allows known crazy people to roam our streets unsupervised. Just this week, a guy in Tennessee, who had been arrested for jumping the fence at the White House and posing a threat to those inside was able to shoot and kill four people.

Registration didn't help those people. But, had that KNOWN nutjob been in a mental institution, four people would be alive today. Registering guns or humans is for people who have no use for Liberty.

Incarceration is not always the answer to our problems

 

[Humorme]

Same argument that the left makes about gun owners.

Registration is the wrong solution. Better way to get the job done.

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

Maybe you should think outside the box and ask yourself WHY America allows known crazy people to roam our streets unsupervised. Just this week, a guy in Tennessee, who had been arrested for jumping the fence at the White House and posing a threat to those inside was able to shoot and kill four people.

Registration didn't help those people. But, had that KNOWN nutjob been in a mental institution, four people would be alive today. Registering guns or humans is for people who have no use for Liberty.

Incarceration is not always the answer to our problems

I fully agree. But, prisons and welfare are not helping people that pose a physical danger to the public at large.

There is no cookie cutter model. You rehabilitate those that you can rehabilitate; you put people who cannot be rehabilitated into mental institutions (if they have a mental disease) and you keep them in prison if they just want to be a career badass.

 

[hadit]

Freedom is messy, chaotic, can be dangerous, and requires individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and protection.

It is also vastly preferable to the illusion of safety gained from granting another power over ourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Registration is the solution

Track guns from cradle to grave

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

Maybe you should think outside the box and ask yourself WHY America allows known crazy people to roam our streets unsupervised. Just this week, a guy in Tennessee, who had been arrested for jumping the fence at the White House and posing a threat to those inside was able to shoot and kill four people.

Registration didn't help those people. But, had that KNOWN nutjob been in a mental institution, four people would be alive today. Registering guns or humans is for people who have no use for Liberty.

Incarceration is not always the answer to our problems

I fully agree. But, prisons and welfare are not helping people that pose a physical danger to the public at large.

There is no cookie cutter model. You rehabilitate those that you can rehabilitate; you put people who cannot be rehabilitated into mental institutions (if they have a mental disease) and you keep them in prison if they just want to be a career badass.

There is a wide spectrum of crazy. Some are controllable with medication, others may have occasional episodes, some may be a little “off” but are no threat
Locking people away should be a last resort

 

[Humorme]

Registration of men or firearms is only a solution to Liberty - since you appear to hate it so much.

I agree

Let women have all the firearms they wish
They rarely cause any trouble

Maybe you should think outside the box and ask yourself WHY America allows known crazy people to roam our streets unsupervised. Just this week, a guy in Tennessee, who had been arrested for jumping the fence at the White House and posing a threat to those inside was able to shoot and kill four people.

Registration didn't help those people. But, had that KNOWN nutjob been in a mental institution, four people would be alive today. Registering guns or humans is for people who have no use for Liberty.

Incarceration is not always the answer to our problems

I fully agree. But, prisons and welfare are not helping people that pose a physical danger to the public at large.

There is no cookie cutter model. You rehabilitate those that you can rehabilitate; you put people who cannot be rehabilitated into mental institutions (if they have a mental disease) and you keep them in prison if they just want to be a career badass.

There is a wide spectrum of crazy. Some are controllable with medication, others may have occasional episodes, some may be a little “off” but are no threat
Locking people away should be a last resort

I fully agree that locking people away should be a last resort, but how many times should a person be able to go crazy and not be taken out of society? For Nickolas Cruz, he had the police called on him multiple times; he was kicked out of school for violence related issues; he was on medications.

The fact is virtually every mass shooter (save of political jihadists) are on or were recently on SSRIs. That is medication. At what point do you think we should heed the signs and put those people into protective custody? Never? And then you're going to argue for chasing some poor sap down that is only feeding his family because of a freaking human registration document?

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. Today, blacks have apparently buried the hatchet and moved on. In the present, unless someone is willing to kiss the black man's arse, they are persona non grata. Blacks don't even cut their own people slack. Kayne West is being bullied by black people for supporting Republicans. So much for the hypocritical diversity the blacks claim to believe in. But I digress.

When it comes to Democrats, black people are deaf, dumb, blind, ignorant and inconsistent. Hitlery Clinton has said things about blacks that David Duke has never uttered... and he was the most famous KKK leader of my lifetime!

By contrast, it was the Republicans who illegally ratified the 14th Amendment. That brings us to the United States Constitution.

Our Declaration of Independence says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

So, Liberty is an unalienable Right. This should be simple enough to understand. Liberty is a Right given to you by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) Unalienable Rights are natural, God given, inherent, and absolute. In my mind, this is a simple concept, but not understand by your average person. The Bill of Rights codified those unalienable Rights.

Now, the reality is, citizenship is NOT an unalienable Right. It is more of a revocable privilege created by government. But, your average Republican thinks that the government creates rights and that you must be a citizen in order to have rights.

IF you buy their current argument, I cannot make a good case for you to join the Republican Party other than the FACT that, before the 14th Amendment, (which is the work of Republicans) blacks were not considered men, but only 3/5ths of a person. It's in the Constitution. As such, blacks only had limited privileges in early America.

Fast forward to today. The Republicans want your vote as do the Democrats. At the end of the day, Democrats are about the control of people. The Democrats don't think you're smart enough to make your own decisions. Under the Democrats, you work and pay most of what you make in the form of taxes. Then the government decides what you should be able to spend your money on as they dole out a portion of it back to the people. You can sugar coat it any way you like,but if you vote for Democrats, you support slavery.

In theory, the Republicans will tell you that your income should not be taxed. You should pay taxes on consumption. That view means that the more we consume, the more we are taxed and that flow of money keeps the economy vibrant. Then, again, it was the Republicans that let the Democrats con them into passing the 16th Amendment and subject you to an income tax - the basis of which looks like it was lifted right from the pages of the Communist Manifesto.

Here is what I think is more telling:

The Democrats were obsessed with blaming Hispanics for our economic woes until the National Socialists infiltrated the Republican Party. And there it becomes necessary for the blacks to study their arguments carefully.

Most Republicans hate, loathe, and despise the concept of unalienable Rights. To them, unless you have a birth certificate, a Socialist Surveillance Number ...oooops, "Social Security Number," a National ID Card, and have been blood tested, background checked; given the government some of your pee for a pee test and a lock of your hair for testing along with fingerprints, DNA, MVR report and chant the mantra that is their litmus test, then plain and simple... YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS.

So defensive is the right, one of them will be by shortly to turn this rant into FORTY paragraphs because instead of making their own case; they will have this compelling need (much like OCD) to comment on every single paragraph I write.

Should you join the Republican Party? The best way to determine that is by listening to the really dumb ass arguments the Republicans make relative to Liberty. Liberty only applies if you are an American citizen and if you are here with human registration papers, then you and your American born "anchor babies" should go across the border.

IF they are successful in that endeavor, it wouldn't be a generation before the blacks or someone else would become their target. And I think it would be blacks because, like it or not, they cannot assimilate into white culture. A quick look at Chicago should tell you that black people don't fare well under the white culture and their laws.

So, to be perfectly honest, black people would be better off petitioning rich folks like Oprah Winfrey, Diddy Combs, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson, etc, and encouraging them to invest in an African country and then go somewhere you don't have to guess at which party you should become a part of.

As is, America is a sinking ship and the only solution either side wants to promote is slavery.

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

 

[Humorme]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

This thread by conservatives says all there needs to be said when someone asks why blacks don't vote for conservatives.....How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

As the Bible states:

" He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

So, you don't read the posting and call me a liar. How absolutely foolish!

This thread is about why should blacks vote for Republicans. I answered it and answered it truthfully. You don't like it? Kiss my ass. The response wasn't directed to you, but was a response to the OP.

If you have a personal issue with me, you should settle it in a PM instead of calling me a liar. The mods might let you do that, but it only proves that you have NO common decency nor intelligence.

I'm sorry you feel embarrassed by either willfully lying about who the first racists were or being too ignorant about history. It isn't my job to hold anyone's hand and walk them through historical events nor explain to them why they are not able to take the same time and learn history as most have done. Please, don't try to judge anyone on their intelligence level, when your posts contain so many incorrect points.

Embarrassed? By you calling me a liar? No, I feel pity for gutless trolls that talk smack on the Internet. Most on this board have forgotten more about history than you are capable of learning. But, what the Hell, you have the right to pretend you're a legend in your own mind. Your delusions about how intelligent you are and everybody is below you doesn't embarrass me at all - unless it was discovered we were related.

 

[ATL]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

I am partly responsible for taking this thread into places you did not intend to go. So, let me apologize and then take some of your time to answer your question. This response will be long, but well worth your time to read:

I disagree with you about history. Once you understand the past you will understand the current.

There is NO doubt about it. The Democrats were the first racists in the United States. That is a fact. .

I stopped reading here, because lying by omission is still lying. You want to conflate party (democratic) with ideology (liberal/conservative). Read up on the voting results of the CRA to see why geographical location is where the divide on race was settled. The north overwhelmingly voted for the CRA, while the south overwhelmingly voted against it. Here is the breakdown.....

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%)


So, the snake oil that has been peddled for so long by conservatives is just that, snake oil. It was and isn't about "democrats vs republicans", it was always about liberals vs conservatives.

Then why was the question asked of Republicans?

Um...because today the Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal, which was not the case when that member tried to say Democrats were the first racists.