0
0
0
Walter Williams is a black conservative pundant and blogger. For my friends and "family" who happen to be black, I have posted this for your consideration. For the rest of us, this should be equally enlighting. For whatever it's faults, the Republican Party (particulary the conservative wing) has tried to the r@LTC John Paul Cook ight thing when it comes to "true social justice." In light of some of the most recent "segregation" efforts of the left, how can they say they are progressives when just 40-50 years ago the Liberal Civil Rights Movement faught against seperate but equal shools, lunch rooms, etc.?
Democrats' Hoodwinking of Blacks
Posted from dailysignal.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Organization
Racism
Political Organization Racism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
I posted about this before and I will post it again, that this is only a half truth about the Republican and Democratic parties. Notice in the article that the author stops at the 1960's with the history of the parties. up to the 1960s what the author writes is very true, with one caveat. It was mainly the southern democratic block that embraced slavery, secession from the union, the confederacy, the KKK, and segregation. They opposed school integration and also the civil rights act and the voting rights act. LBJ burned up all his capital to push those two acts through congress and after this the southern block switched parties over to the republican party. Hence why before the mid 1960s the south was full of blue states and after 1964/1965 the south became red states. Also this is why for over a century the republican party was the party for black people and over the last 60 years it has not been the party of black people. This is not to say that it was only southern democrats prior to the 1960s as there were many racists in congress from other parts of the country, but the majority came from the south. I am also not saying that today's southern republicans are all just racists but many are products of the region and history they grew up in.
(5)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
In those videos there are some good points and it is true that the black voters did vote democrat well before the 1960's. AS can be seen in the electorial college so did everyone else because of economic issues which during the depression trumped racial issues.. My point is that the individuals who supported the ideals of slavery, the confederacy, segregation, the KKK etc switched parties, not the black vote. Just look at the electoral college returns. The south was entirely blue for well over 100 years until the 1964 election. Once this election occurred and LBJ pushed civil rights and voting rights, the south suddenly goes red except for the 1976 election because of Jimmy Carter. Did the senators and such change parties, no. I apologize if that was what it sounded like. The individual senators and congressmen did not change parties, but the voters who supported those individuals did change party. And with the change in voter party affiliation, the ideals of those voters changed parties. So in essence the southern block did switch parties in terms of what party controlled the south and who voted for them. The republicans gained that southern block of voters in the late 60s along with their beliefs regarding segregation.
Plus Levin is wrong about about Eisenhower. Just look at the electoral college. Solid blue in the south. He may have gotten more white voters in than Republicans before but he certainly did not win many southern states.
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Plus Levin is wrong about about Eisenhower. Just look at the electoral college. Solid blue in the south. He may have gotten more white voters in than Republicans before but he certainly did not win many southern states.
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016
View a map, results and history from each of the 58 prior U.S. presidential elections.
(3)
(0)
CDR (Join to see)
SSG Ken Gouchenour - I never said the republican party has believed in segregation. There is a block of voters that mainly live in the south that have supported segregation. These voters, NOT PARTY, have been the ones that supported the Democratic party since the days of slavery, this block of voters have been the one that wanted to leave the union, these voters are the ones that supported the confederacy, these voters are the ones that supported the KKK and these voters are the ones that supported segregation. For much of the history of the United States, they voted Democrat. Today thought they vote Republican. They made the switch in the 1960's and 1970s as they saw the Democratic party embrace minorities.
The new deal programs were all about the depression and keeping people employed. It was not about "keeping ignorant people depandant". The new deal was about getting people relief, getting them back to being employed and regulating banks so a great depression did not happen again. There were also farming support programs, fair labor standards, and today's social security program. The banking regulation to prevent another depression called the Glass Steagall act was stupidly removed in the 1990's and look how that turned out in 2008. Many of the programs were very appropriate for the time when unemployment hit over 20%. Our consumer economy needed people to have jobs to spend money so that other people could earn money.
LBJ was a racist as were a large number of other people in american at that time. The difference is he wasn't out there in a white pointy hat as many of the Dixiecrats were. He recognized that there was a large group of poor Americans who were being oppressed by the laws of this country and he sought to fix this with the civil rights act and the voting rights act. He was also a shred politician and he knew he could convince more black people to vote democrat and keep his party in power if he pushed those acts through.
Lets take off those rose colored glass when we talk about either party. Neither party has exactly endeared itself to the general public over the last 40 plus years. While the Republicans say they are for small government and economic freedom, the certainly do not act that way. Supporting big business at the expense of workers is not economic freedom and it is not capitalism. It is also funny how they always say they want small government but the interfere in the daily lives of many especially when it comes to marriage, abortions, a large DOD, more prisons, more natural gas and oil sites that communities opposed, and religion into schools and the government.
The Democrats on the other hand have expanded the so called welfare state, because we have more poor people than ever before. There are not enough jobs that pay well out there for people to earn a decent living. Yes there are some people who abuse the system but there are just as many who abuse the tax system to pay significantly less than they should in taxes as well. The democrats are not altruistic in any sense of the word. They care about black people because that is part of their voting base and they want to say in power. Plain and simple.
You could have easily written an article entitle "Republicans hoodwinking of poor whites" and listed out all the ways that the republican party has sought to support the rich and big corporations at the expense of the poor white working class. Lower taxes does nothing for poor Americans except cut their social security, their medicare and medicaid and their ability to get a good education and move up the economic ladder.
All this article and the idea behind are is that the right is trying to sow dissent and discord into the democratic party by saying hey black people you are hanging out with a bunch of racists. We over here are not racist at all, look at all we did back in the day. The problem is that that is history form over 60 years ago. Today the Democrats at least go out and talk about about support what minorities want even and oppose racism even if they don't truly believe in it, while all the republicans care about are the rich and corporations and oppose anything that would help minorities advance. How are you gonna get black voters over to the republican party when you cut funding to education which is the stepping stone to success and when you cut taxes, deregulate, and oppose unions but don't force corporations to put that money toward more better paying jobs such as what unions would ask for that would allow many black people to get off welfare. How are you gonna convince black people to vote republican when you oppose a woman right to have an abortion and a gay couples right to get married, while trying to roll back voting laws with voter id all of which come close to trying to roll back the civil rights and voting rights acts.
Both levin and D'Souza are far right pundits so I hold their opinion in about as high regard as any far left pundits such as Michael Moore and maybe Bill Maher.
This gives you a better view of who really voted for the civil rights act. When you look at it by region you see the south both Republicans and Democrat opposed. The democrats in the north actually supported the bill more than the republicans in the north.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
The new deal programs were all about the depression and keeping people employed. It was not about "keeping ignorant people depandant". The new deal was about getting people relief, getting them back to being employed and regulating banks so a great depression did not happen again. There were also farming support programs, fair labor standards, and today's social security program. The banking regulation to prevent another depression called the Glass Steagall act was stupidly removed in the 1990's and look how that turned out in 2008. Many of the programs were very appropriate for the time when unemployment hit over 20%. Our consumer economy needed people to have jobs to spend money so that other people could earn money.
LBJ was a racist as were a large number of other people in american at that time. The difference is he wasn't out there in a white pointy hat as many of the Dixiecrats were. He recognized that there was a large group of poor Americans who were being oppressed by the laws of this country and he sought to fix this with the civil rights act and the voting rights act. He was also a shred politician and he knew he could convince more black people to vote democrat and keep his party in power if he pushed those acts through.
Lets take off those rose colored glass when we talk about either party. Neither party has exactly endeared itself to the general public over the last 40 plus years. While the Republicans say they are for small government and economic freedom, the certainly do not act that way. Supporting big business at the expense of workers is not economic freedom and it is not capitalism. It is also funny how they always say they want small government but the interfere in the daily lives of many especially when it comes to marriage, abortions, a large DOD, more prisons, more natural gas and oil sites that communities opposed, and religion into schools and the government.
The Democrats on the other hand have expanded the so called welfare state, because we have more poor people than ever before. There are not enough jobs that pay well out there for people to earn a decent living. Yes there are some people who abuse the system but there are just as many who abuse the tax system to pay significantly less than they should in taxes as well. The democrats are not altruistic in any sense of the word. They care about black people because that is part of their voting base and they want to say in power. Plain and simple.
You could have easily written an article entitle "Republicans hoodwinking of poor whites" and listed out all the ways that the republican party has sought to support the rich and big corporations at the expense of the poor white working class. Lower taxes does nothing for poor Americans except cut their social security, their medicare and medicaid and their ability to get a good education and move up the economic ladder.
All this article and the idea behind are is that the right is trying to sow dissent and discord into the democratic party by saying hey black people you are hanging out with a bunch of racists. We over here are not racist at all, look at all we did back in the day. The problem is that that is history form over 60 years ago. Today the Democrats at least go out and talk about about support what minorities want even and oppose racism even if they don't truly believe in it, while all the republicans care about are the rich and corporations and oppose anything that would help minorities advance. How are you gonna get black voters over to the republican party when you cut funding to education which is the stepping stone to success and when you cut taxes, deregulate, and oppose unions but don't force corporations to put that money toward more better paying jobs such as what unions would ask for that would allow many black people to get off welfare. How are you gonna convince black people to vote republican when you oppose a woman right to have an abortion and a gay couples right to get married, while trying to roll back voting laws with voter id all of which come close to trying to roll back the civil rights and voting rights acts.
Both levin and D'Souza are far right pundits so I hold their opinion in about as high regard as any far left pundits such as Michael Moore and maybe Bill Maher.
This gives you a better view of who really voted for the civil rights act. When you look at it by region you see the south both Republicans and Democrat opposed. The democrats in the north actually supported the bill more than the republicans in the north.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
Harry J Enten: Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Well, I couldn't open the link but I will say this: If Democrats have "hoodwinked" Blacks, as this...article alleges, what has "The Party of Lincoln" done to make it right? Why hasn't the Republican Party fought to regain that title of distinction? Why has it been easier to simply abandon and ignore that part of the Republican's history? (unless you are talking to a Democrat. Then, the GOP chooses to wear it like an overcoat, something that can be taken on and off when the situation merits it.) What has the GOP and the current crop of Republicans done for this or is it just easier to post...articles like this, shrug your collective shoulders and do nothing but continue to assign fault and blame while avoiding responsibility at the same time?
(5)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Ken Gouchenour - *paycheck.
Like I said, you got nothing because the GOP and you have put out nothing.
You were fun at first, now you've gotten boring. Deuces, Champ
Like I said, you got nothing because the GOP and you have put out nothing.
You were fun at first, now you've gotten boring. Deuces, Champ
(2)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Ken Gouchenour - Oh yeah. Economic freedom means a lot but it does matter if everyone around you is dead or dying, hence why stem cell research is a little essential, especially when talking about drug research and disease eradication. And isn't it weird that in doing that it would allow many other people to engage in this "economic freedom" you want to wave in everyone's face by extending and improving their quality of life?
Lad, you are outgunned, outwitted, outclassed, and outdone. I recommend you look for easier marks elsewhere. You'll find no such here.
Lad, you are outgunned, outwitted, outclassed, and outdone. I recommend you look for easier marks elsewhere. You'll find no such here.
(2)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Ken Gouchenour - yeah because it was only you "evil white Republicans" that ever fought any of our wars. I don't allege that any politician has my best interest at heart but at least Democrats aren't trying to take away my choices just to satisfy their moral beliefs (Texas) or use a state as a tax experiment and create a 1.6 billion dollars deficit (Kansas) or rewrite the rules so they could mitigate the powers of the incoming governor and make it harder for him to do anything (North Carolina).
But you wanna talk about economic freedom. Ok, I'll bite.
If you don't have freedom of speech, economic freedom is meaningless because you won't have a say in where your money goes, how it's spent or how much gets taken.
If you don't have freedom of movement, economic freedom is meaningless because you won't be able to go anywhere but where you are told to spend your money
If you don't have freedom of choice, economic freedom is meaningless because you can't do what you want, go where you want or get what you want, only what you are told what you can have, where you can go and how much you can get
So, to break it down even further for you because apparently you need it, if you can't do what you want, when you want, where you want, for all long as you want and get as much as you want, it matters a damn how much "economic freedom" you have because you can't do anything. Each freedom we have plays off of each other and if you don't understand that, then YOU are a special kind of RETARDED.
The Native Americans in South America, many of which have never seen modern society or modern people before now, have never heard of the concept of "economic freedom" and their people have been doing the same thing and living the same way for centuries. You think no other freedom matters if you have economic freedom? Then tell, me what good is all of that money if you are in prison? Your economic freedom is meaningless then.
But you wanna talk about economic freedom. Ok, I'll bite.
If you don't have freedom of speech, economic freedom is meaningless because you won't have a say in where your money goes, how it's spent or how much gets taken.
If you don't have freedom of movement, economic freedom is meaningless because you won't be able to go anywhere but where you are told to spend your money
If you don't have freedom of choice, economic freedom is meaningless because you can't do what you want, go where you want or get what you want, only what you are told what you can have, where you can go and how much you can get
So, to break it down even further for you because apparently you need it, if you can't do what you want, when you want, where you want, for all long as you want and get as much as you want, it matters a damn how much "economic freedom" you have because you can't do anything. Each freedom we have plays off of each other and if you don't understand that, then YOU are a special kind of RETARDED.
The Native Americans in South America, many of which have never seen modern society or modern people before now, have never heard of the concept of "economic freedom" and their people have been doing the same thing and living the same way for centuries. You think no other freedom matters if you have economic freedom? Then tell, me what good is all of that money if you are in prison? Your economic freedom is meaningless then.
(1)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Ken Gouchenour - Yep. You are literally a "true believer" and nothing and no proof contrary to yours will change that. Have fun in your jacked up section of your universe
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Capt Dwayne Conyers
How about “American” or “citizens of the USA” irrelevant of the amount of melanin in their epidermis.
We no longer say “the Irish” or “the Polish” — but we all know why that is.
Just trying to focus on enlightenment.
Pun not intended.
We no longer say “the Irish” or “the Polish” — but we all know why that is.
Just trying to focus on enlightenment.
Pun not intended.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google