Burgess Owens Torches Democrats: Party Of ‘Slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Killed Over 40% of Black Babies’

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  4 months ago  •  94 comments

Burgess Owens Torches Democrats: Party Of ‘Slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Killed Over 40% of Black Babies’

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former NFL player Burgess Owens blasted the Democratic Party on Wednesday as he testified to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties on the issue of reparations.

“The focus of the discussion was a bill authored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) that would initiate a study of the issue of reparations and come up with proposals for ‘appropriate remedies’ to slavery and discrimination from 1619 to the present,” The Blaze   reported . “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) publicly opposed reparations in comments made Tuesday, saying he doesn't ‘think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago when none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea.’”

"I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race," Owens said. "I do believe in restitution. Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40 percent of our black babies, 20 million of them."

"State of California, 75 percent of our black boys cannot pass standard reading and writing tests: a Democratic state," Owens continued. "So yes, let’s pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race and those — after we learn our history — who decide to stay there, they should pay also. They are complicit. And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your white skin, you should need to pony up also. That way we can get past this reparation and recognize that this country has given us greatness."

"Look at this panel. Doesn’t matter how we think. Doesn’t matter our color. We have become successful in this country like no other because of this great opportunity to live the American dream," Owens added. "Let’s not steal that from our kids by telling them they can’t do it."

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

Now there is an idea.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

So Burgess wants the Democrats of today to pay 'restitution' for what he claims the 'Party' did. Got ya. 

That's makes SO much more sense than having the NATION pay 'reparations' for actions sanctioned by the NATION in it's founding document.  /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.1    4 months ago
So Burgess wants the Democrats of today to pay 'restitution' for what he claims the 'Party' did

I doubt it. I think his real point is that the whole thing does no one any favors. He illustrated that by suggesting that the very people calling for reparations be the ones to pay it, anticipating that they would object. Looks like he was right.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.1    4 months ago
I doubt it.

Why would you doubt it? Owens said it himself. 

From his opening statement:

Let's pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race...

See, he wants restitution. 

I think his real point is that the whole thing does no one any favors.

How did you come to that conclusion? 

He illustrated that by suggesting that the very people calling for reparations be the ones to pay it, anticipating that they would object.
Looks like he was right.

Actually, he illustrated his warped understanding of history, especially the last 50 years of it. 

I find it interesting that when it came to reparations for the Japanese that we interned, there wasn't a peep about ONE party being responsible for that nationally sanctioned action. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @1.1.2    4 months ago
How did you come to that conclusion?

Context and the rest of his words.

I find it interesting that when it came to reparations for the Japanese that we interned, there wasn't a peep about ONE party being responsible for that nationally sanctioned action.

There might have been. I don't recall. Perhaps that issue was easier to settle because it was narrowly confined in time, space, and the people affected. The impacts of slavery, Jim Crow, and general racism over a period of centuries, across the country, and so on, make it a far more complex situation. It is probably better solved through fair justice going forward as opposed to simply throwing money at people and pretending that makes it ok. 

Plus, as this speaker is pointing out, the assumption that this is needed today can send a negative message. That's a fair point.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1    4 months ago
So Burgess wants the Democrats of today to pay 'restitution' for what he claims the 'Party' did. Got ya.  That's makes SO much more sense than having the NATION pay 'reparations' for actions sanctioned by the NATION in it's founding document.  /s

No, he wants people who feel guilty to pay restitution because he recognizes the idea is all about their "feelings".

Reparations won't raise test scores.  They won't improve opportunities for minority kids.  They won't make black people more informed about money and finances.   All they will do is enable guilty white liberals to turn their back on the real problems but "feel better".

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.4    4 months ago
No, he wants people who feel guilty to pay restitution because he recognizes the idea is all about their "feelings".

That's not what he said. But hey, you hear what you want to hear...

Reparations won't raise test scores. They won't improve opportunities for minority kids. They won't make black people more informed about money and finances.

You know all that HOW? 

All they will do is enable guilty white liberals to turn their back on the real problems but "feel better".

Well hell, we've just dumped 30 million to enable guilty white conservaitves to 'feel better' about Trump fucking farmers and it looks like there's more to come. Why should the conservative be the only ones that get to add millions to the debt? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    4 months ago
That's not what he said.

Or maybe....it is....

And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your white skin, you should need to pony up also.

It's all about the "feelings".

Well hell, we've just dumped 30 million to enable guilty white conservaitves to 'feel better' about Trump fucking farmers and it looks like there's more to come. Why should the conservative be the only ones that get to add millions to the debt? 

How much is it going to take to buy out your conscience?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.6    4 months ago
And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your white skin, you should need to pony up also.

Yes he said that AND since he used the word AND it's obvious that when he said ALSO he meant IN ADDITION TO. 

It's all about the "feelings".

What he said immediately before that wasn't about 'feelings' at all...

Let's pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race...

So when you said no, you were WRONG. 

How much is it going to take to buy out your conscience?

My conscience isn't for sale. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    4 months ago

Fux 'news' - where all so-called conservatives go once they're washed up.  

So now he's blaming all the blacks problems on Democrats?

Ignoring history?

Whatever.  

How did 'we' kill 20 million black babies?

This guy has a real chip on his shoulder.  

He's got all the right talking points brought on by years of 'conservative' whitewashing.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    4 months ago
Party Of ‘Slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Killed Over 40% Of Black Babies’

Well, that explains why Democrats voted for Obama....twice. /s

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MrFrost @3    4 months ago

He says "I used to be a Democrat until I did my history". From that statement alone It's obvious that what happened was he made a ton of money in the NFL and was courted by Republicans always on the look out for wealthy black Americans to use as tokens, then fill their heads with anti-taxation BS and a rewriting of the actual history of the Democrat party and never mention how the "Democrat party" that supported slavery and created the KKK was the "Southern Democrat" party and the Southern Dixiecrats who effectively don't exist anymore. All those old bastions of racist hate still exist, they're just all Republican strongholds now. It is rather stunning how they can appeal to any black Americans when they are represented by the least diverse, least number of minorities and women in their legislature. You would think if Republicans were so comfortable with black Americans they would support more of them for positions in their party instead of just holdout out the occasional token member as if its proof of their diversity.

“Look at my African-American over here!” - Donald J Trump

How any black American isn't offended by nearly everything the Republican party now stands for is beyond me. They once stood for truth, justice and equality and fought for minority rights, now they are the complete opposite. We saw the same thing in reverse with many Southern Democrats from the past, who stood for hate, prejudice and discrimination, now the party as a whole stands for the exact opposite which is why in 2018 90% of black Americans voted for a Democrat.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    4 months ago

He converted to LDS 30 plus years ago.

He has written anti liberal books spewing God, country and family.

He has his views of history quite confused, but, but

he has a super bowl ring /s

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    4 months ago

His history lesson must have stopped with the Roosevelt Administration. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    4 months ago
It's obvious that what happened was he made a ton of money in the NFL and was courted by Republicans always on the look out for wealthy black Americans to use as tokens, then fill their heads with

Sounds you're saying that old house negro can't think for himself.

How any black American isn't offended by nearly everything the Republican party now stands for is beyond me.

Oh look kids! It's the No True Scotsman fallacy! Racist version.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.3    4 months ago
the No True Scotsman fallacy! Racist version

White liberals are the only ones who know how "real" blacks think. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.3    4 months ago

How fascinating. Saying racist things isn't a violation, but pointing it out is. jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.5    4 months ago

How fascinating.  You called him a racist, he didn't say anything racist.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    4 months ago
He says "I used to be a Democrat until I did my history". From that statement alone It's obvious that what happened was he made a ton of money in the NFL and was courted by Republicans always on the look out for wealthy black Americans to use as tokens

Spot on. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    4 months ago
You called him a racist

I actually didn't.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.9  Heartland American  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    4 months ago

God forbid that an American citizen would speak out promoting God, country, and family.  Values totally alien to many secular progressives in this country who find all three to be anathema to them.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.10  Heartland American  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.8    4 months ago

You and Sean made good points here and are right.  

 
 
 
Phaedrus
4  Phaedrus    4 months ago
Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow

All of which were supported by conservatives, whose political ideology has never changed...only the political parties they claim. I just can't understand how people can't see the difference between a political party and a political ideology. Parties have swapped ideologies, but those ideologies, in and of themselves, have never changed.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Phaedrus @4    4 months ago
Parties have swapped ideologies, but those ideologies, in and of themselves, have never changed.

Bingo...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @4    4 months ago
hich were supported by conservative

New Deal Democrats were conservatives?

Who knew?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    4 months ago
New Deal Democrats were conservatives? Who knew?

No the 'States Rights Democratic Party' were conservatives. They ran Strom Thurmond for President against the New Deal/Fair Deal Harry Truman. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.1    4 months ago

And you ignore all the progressive, Roosevelt supporting democrats who were good segregationists.

It's funny how little modern progressives understand about their history.

The idea that "conservatism" is a defining characteristic of postbellum  segregationists is historically illiterate.  Hell, the first progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, re-segregated the Federal government. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    4 months ago
And you ignore all the progressive, Roosevelt supporting democrats who were good segregationists.

Why shouldn't I since all so many ignore all of the ultra conservatives that are 'good segregations' NOW. 

It's funny how little modern progressives understand about their history.

Not as funny as how desperately neo-nationalists want to forget the last 50 years of it. 

The idea that "conservatism" is a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists is historically illiterate.

Oh then please DO tell me what IS the defining characteristic. 

Hell, the first progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, re-segregated the Federal government.

Hell you moved the goal posts from New Deal Democrats to 'progressive'. Bad form...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.3    4 months ago
Why shouldn't I since all so many ignore all of the ultra conservatives that are 'good segregations

Really? Who are the elected  segregationists?

w desperately neo-nationalists want to forget the last 50 years of it.

Say what? Are you just pushing words together?

e goal posts from New Deal Democrats to 'progressive'.

No, the discussion is about ideology and political parties. As anyone who knows even the littlest bit about American history understands, Progressive Democrats were often racist, demonstrating the falsity of the claim that who supported Jim Crow laws, the KKK etc.. were conservative.  It's an ahistorical partisan talking point shared by ignorant progressives.  Progressives who passed the New Deal were just as committed to maintaining Jim Crow. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.4    4 months ago
Really? Who are the elected  segregationists?

Everyone who supports separating families at the border and detaining separated children while deporting their parents. 

Say what? Are you just pushing words together?

What part of my statement don't you understand? 

No, the discussion is about idealogy and political parties.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

What a bunch of deflective blather. YOU are the one that brought up 'New Deal Democrats', then you deflect to 'the first progressive Democratic President'. 

BTFW, I note that you didn't tell me about the 'defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists'.

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.5    4 months ago
one who supports separating families at the border

Oh.. so you don't understand what we are talking about.

What part of my statement don't you understand? 

The irrelevant, nonsensical part.

YOU are the one that brought up 'New Deal Democrats', then you deflect to 'the first progressive Democratic President

And you are the one who can't articulate why that makes a difference. 

 didn't tell me about the 'defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists'

I said conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists.   How can you possibly pretend to not understand what that means? Embarrassing for you! 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.6    4 months ago
Oh.. so you don't understand what we are talking about.

I understand perfectly well what YOU fucking asked:

Who are the elected segregationists?

My reply was perfectly cogent and on point. 

The irrelevant, nonsensical part.

So you understood it just fine but would rather babble than address it. 

And you are the one who can't articulate why that makes a difference.

You never asked until now, though one has to wonder why you'd bring up 'New Deal Democrats' if you didn't know WTF that pertains to. 

New Deal Democrats are from a SPECIFIC time period starting in 1933 BEFORE Wilson was POTUS. 

I said conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists. How can you possibly pretend to not understand what that means? Embarrassing for you!

I KNOW what you said Sean and I understand perfectly what that means. 

You made an assertion. I asked you to back it up. There is nothing embarrassing about that. 

Now, since you asserted that 'conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists', tell me what is. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.7    4 months ago
I understand perfectly well what YOU fucking asked:

So you can't provide any examples of elected Conservatives supporting racial segregation.

So you understood it just fine but would rather babble than address it. 

It's an irrelevant word salad meant to distract (what new)  Per your usual m.o. you have failed to address  the actual issue in discussion.   

ever asked until now, though one has to wonder why you'd bring up 'New Deal Democrats' 

Here's an idea, try and rebut my point about new deal democrats. Or Wilsonian progressives. Either one.  Just provide a substantive response, for once.

ou made an assertion. I asked you to back it up

I did.  I pointed out that the Progressive Democrat President Wilson actually went so far as to re segregated the Federal government.  Now, for once, try and make an actual argument supported by evidence. 

a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists', tell me what is. 

Racism.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.8    4 months ago
So you can't provide any examples of elected Conservatives supporting racial segregation.

So you can't have a discussion without moving the goal posts. 

It's an irrelevant word salad meant to distract (what new)

I can't understand thing for you Sean. 

Per your usual m.o. you have failed to address the actual issue in discussion.

Per yours, you get personal when you've got nothing. 

Here's an idea, try and rebut my point about new deal democrats. Or Wilsonian progressives. Either one.

I did Sean. READ the thread. 

Just provide a substantive response, for once.

Back to your MO Sean..

I did. I pointed out that the Progressive Democrat President Wilson actually went so far as to re segregated the Federal government. 

Oh please DO explain what the fuck that has to do with 'conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists'. 

That seriously is the biggest deflection I've read here and that's saying something. 

Now, for once, try and make an actual argument supported by evidence.

Thanks for the laugh. 

Racism.

So you think that postbellum segregation was exclusively based on racism. That's not even true in this country. You may want to review the segregation of the Mormons. I'm pretty sure they were white people being segregated by white people...

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.2.10  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    4 months ago

Sean is correct on every point in this thread.  

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @4.2.10    4 months ago
Sean is correct on every point in this thread.  

Your proclamations aren't worth the bits used to post them.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.9    4 months ago

 please DO explain what the fuck that has to do with 'conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists'. 

[Deleted]

President Wilson was a racist who resegreated the federal government

President Wilson was not a conservative. He was a progressive.

Therefore, all racists are not conservatives, nor could an honest person claim racism is a defining  characteristic of conservatives. 

See how that works?

That seriously is the biggest deflection I've read here and that's saying something

[Deleted]

That progressives can be racists as well is the fucking topic at issue.   How do you not understand this.

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence, after all these posts, that the Democrats who supported segregation and the New Deal or the Wilson era Progressives were conservatives.  

As Coates wrote about the noxious New Deal Democrat Senator Bilbo of Mississippi:

"Theodore Bilbo worked to block funding for Howard University, tried to initiate a “Back to Africa” campaign for colonizing black citizens, attempted to segregate the national parks, dismissed multiracial children as “a motley melee of misceginated mongrels,” attempted to ban interracial marriage in Washington, D.C., and raged against antilynching legislation that would compel “Southern girls to use the stools and toilets of damn syphilitic women.” And he did this as a progressive.

It is not enough to claim that “liberalism” has, somehow, changed meanings thus allowing us to disown the Mississippi Senator. On the contrary, the Roosevelt administration congratulated Bilbo on his win in 1940 pronouncing him “a real friend of liberal government.” When Bilbo himself first ran for Senate he promised to “raise the same kind of hell as President Roosevelt.” When he was up for reelection Bilbo promoted himself to be “100 percent for Roosevelt … and the New Deal.”

I'm not aware of any Jim Crow type laws passed against Mormons post civil war. By all means, enlighten me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.12    4 months ago

Started with: 

'conservatism is not a defining characteristic of postbellum segregationists'.

Ended with: 

Therefore, all racists are not conservatives, nor could an honest person claim racism is a defining characteristic of conservatives.
See how that works?

Yes I see that you switched the words. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.2.13    4 months ago

s I see that you switched the words.

Do you feel this is a worthwhile use of your time?  To seize on irrelevancies and avoid substance at all costs?  

I'll spoon feed you yet again. to keep you from having to overheat your brain, switch it to this...

Since President Wilson was a segregationist, and not a Conservative, no  honest person could claim conservatism is a defining characteristic of post bellum segregationist. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Phaedrus @4    4 months ago

So you mean that the Democrats and their liberal masters are still the original racists?

They continue to show it to this day.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3    4 months ago
So you mean that the Democrats and their liberal masters are still the original racists?

Southern Democrats aka "Dixiecrats" and their conservative masters were the original racists, and their banners have been picked up by the current Republican party as we saw in Charlottesville with all the swastikas, confederate flags and MAGA hats mingling.

Conservatives fought to preserve and "conserve" slavery. Conservatives fought to protect bans on women voting, bans on blacks voting, bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage. Conservatives fought to conserve Jim Crow laws and segregation. Thankfully those conservatives are total losers as they have always been and they continue to lose to progress and the progressives pushing for change.

 
 
 
Phaedrus
4.3.2  Phaedrus  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3    4 months ago
So you mean that the Democrats and their liberal masters are still the original racists?

No, Greg. That's not what I mean. But I suppose you knew that. So let me ask you this. In the last 50 years+, what party have conservatives aligned themselves to? If you are trying to tell me that Republicans have not been the conservative party for quite some time, then you're full of shit. Slavery, denying women and minorities the right to vote, the KKK, civil rights opposition and on and on... all conservative platforms. To argue otherwise means you are woefully uninformed.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.3.3  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.3.1    4 months ago

Your post is revisionist BS not even a good try. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3    4 months ago
liberal masters

Want to try that again?

512512

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.3.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @4.3.3    4 months ago
Your post is revisionist BS not even a good try.

Please do provide some evidence to refute it then. If you don't know the actual facts in the first place, you can't really claim my version is "revisionist". So go ahead and find the US history backing up that it was really the liberals who supported slavery, liberals who fought to keep the status quo of women and blacks not being allowed a vote. Either you are redefining what liberals stand for and have created some alternate version where they are against change and want to conserve traditions and the status quo, or you simply have no clue in regards to American history.

Liberal: adjective - open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values

Conservative: adjective - holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion

Conserve: verb - protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.

The "traditional attitudes and values" just before the civil war was that slavery was accepted and defended by many who claimed to be 'conservative' Christians and who wanted to 'conserve' slavery. They also wanted to protect the patriarchy and claimed that denying women a vote was a "traditional biblical value".

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" 1 Timothy 2:12

Conservatives opposed changing their traditions concerning interracial marriage, which was to not allow them.

The one constant, from our founding to today, regardless of party affiliation (there have been more than 162 different parties in our history) is that those who opposed progress, those who supported the status quo of slavery, bans on women and blacks voting, bans on interracial and gay marriage, have almost all considered themselves "Christian conservatives". Were there Christian liberals and progressives who fought for a more perfect union? Of course, but they supported change, they supported progress, they supported getting rid of the status quo and doing away with the bigoted traditions that tried to separate Americans into unequal classes.

So before proclaiming something is "revisionist", I recommend studying the facts and then coming to an informed conclusion instead of just blurting out rhetorical nonsense.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.3.4    4 months ago

Conservatives Opposed Medicare..

Well, then Biden's friend Senator Tallmedge is a liberal. Just like some of the other signers of the Southern Manifesto....

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4  Tacos!  replied to  Phaedrus @4    4 months ago
Parties have swapped ideologies

Not entirely. I'd say it's more of a mixed bag. There are so many issues, it can be problematic trying to pigeon hole the parties. The South was solidly Democratic into the late 80s and overall pretty reliably Democratic well into the 90s. Only in the last 15 years or so has that region settled more strongly into majority Republican rule.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  Tessylo    4 months ago

He sounds like a sell out to me.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 months ago

Maybe he isn't a sell out, maybe he likes his community to enjoy low unemployment over unemployment in the 16% range. Maybe he doesn't like campaign pandering and wants actual solutions to issues.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.1  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 months ago

Exactly right.  

 
 
 
Phaedrus
5.1.2  Phaedrus  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 months ago

Care to address what's been pointed out here regarding political parties vs political ideologies?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Phaedrus @5.1.2    4 months ago

Why would I do that, Democrats have done very little for minorities other than the ballot box pandering

They have no higher ground.

 
 
 
Phaedrus
5.1.4  Phaedrus  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.3    4 months ago
Democrats have done very little for minorities

Remind me what Republicans have done for minorities.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 months ago
maybe he likes his community to enjoy low unemployment over unemployment in the 16% range

Considering that President Obama oversaw the drop from 16% black unemployment down to 7.8% meaning a total drop of 8.2% and then Donald Trump saw a 1% drop and tried to claim he was the one who saved black Americans jobs, only the dumbest of the dumb, most likely already Trump supporters, would believe the nonsense that it was Trump or republicans who came to their rescue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/18/16902390/trump-black-unemployment-rate-record-decline

But I guess if you can find someone dumb enough to believe it, then you've done your job. They say a sucker is born every minute, and this is proven true each time someone gets bamboozled to believe the lies coming from the right.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    4 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @5.1.6    4 months ago

deleted for context

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1    4 months ago

Nah, he's just a token conservative to the 'right' so that they can appear more diverse.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 months ago
He sounds like a sell out to me

Of course he does.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sunshine @5.2    4 months ago

The white privilege in that comment is amazing.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.2  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.2.1    4 months ago

The very same applies to the comment in 5.1.8

 
 
 
squiggy
6  squiggy    4 months ago

“...and discrimination from 1619 to the present,””

The present?

A melanin tax. All the polaks, himeys, and micks will get nothing for their ghetto past but will be taxed at 99%. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
7  Split Personality    4 months ago

Well color me confused.

Burgess wants reparations or does he not?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-didnt-earn-slavery-reparations-and-i-dont-want-them-11558732429

Maybe he favors them but not for himself.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1  MUVA  replied to  Split Personality @7    4 months ago

As a great grandson of slaves I don't want them neither does my 88 old dad that is black and grew up in rural Arkansas in the 30's.I'm for holding the democrats responsible for their racism by not voting for any of them ever.  

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  MUVA @7.1    4 months ago

You must have been asleep for the last fifty years since the damn gop welcomed the racist Dixiecrats into Nixon's Big Tent. Have you completely forgotten all about Dick Nixon's Southern Strategy to get his lousy crooked ass reelected in 1972?  Even 5th Graders know this more recent history...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    4 months ago

Maybe because he's black and well you are  very white you shouldn't tell him what his experience has been.

Let's face it, your experience has been different.

You can't speak for others. That's part of the issue. Democrats who have done nothing for minorities think they speak for them. When minorities give an opinion that's different than theirs, they call the minority a sell out, token or uncle Tom.

They are people just like you. They are entitled to an opinion as you are. 

Even 5th Graders know thismorerecent history...

Here we go, calling a minority BOY thinking your being clever. Fucking disgusting!

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JBB @7.1.1    4 months ago

You seem to forget the 100 years of death and racism the democrats were responsible for I don't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @7.1.3    4 months ago

What death and racism are the democrats responsible for?  Which 100 years?

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.4    4 months ago

You really don't know the democrats started the KKK? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

 
 
 
Phaedrus
7.1.6  Phaedrus  replied to  MUVA @7.1.5    4 months ago

You mean the CONSERVATIVE Democrats? Yes, we knew that. Now the republicans are conservative. Try to keep up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @7.1.6    4 months ago

ou mean the CONSERVATIVE Democrats?

They weren't just conservatives. Pay attention and stop parroting propaganda.

Here's progressive her Ta-Nahesi Coates:

"There is some sense that when we talk about the period leading up to the New Deal and beyond, that we are talking about progressives in the North making a tragic, yet necessary, bargain with white racists conservatives in the South. In fact what Ira Katznelson shows in Fear Itself is something a little more complicated. The white supremacists in his book are, indeed, for the most part, Southern. But they also are very much married to to the prospect of progressive liberal reform. It may break our brains a bit to imagine, say, a Southern white supremacist backing railroad unions. But that’s actual history...

No character in Katznelson's book troubles the waters like Mississippi's governor, and then senator, Theodore Bilbo. Here is a man who, in one breath, can be hailed as "a liberal fire-eater" and then in another dubbed "a bulldog for protecting traditions of the South."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism-cont/275129/

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @7.1    4 months ago

It would be nice if everyone stopped using the labels Democrats, Republicans, Whigs and Federalists, etc.,

and identified "those people" by their ideologies.

Conservatives clung to slavery, liberal progressives freed the slaves but couldn't bring themselves to give them completely equal rights.

No one was free of the stains of slavery

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @7.1.5    4 months ago

Yes, they did.  And they were 100% conservative and Christian and racist.

Makes it confusing to want to be identified as a modern Conservative, doesn't it?

 
 
 
Phaedrus
7.1.10  Phaedrus  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.7    4 months ago
Pay attention and stop parroting propaganda

The only one parroting propaganda is you, Sean. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history on every issue in this country since the Salem witch trials, regardless of how you want to spin it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Phaedrus @7.1.10    4 months ago
he only one parroting propaganda is you, Sea

Now thats funny. Ta Naeshi Coates is conservative propaganda.

Open a book and stop clinging to fairy tales that make you feel good.  History is a lot more complicated then your little simplistic pronouncements. Progressives were often racist. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.11    4 months ago

There are two "Irish" neighborhoods, about a mile apart,  in my neck of the woods on the far south side of Chicago.  One of them, Beverly, is an integrated neighborhood and is considered liberal politically.  The other, Mt Greenwood, is 95% white and is politically conservative. (One of the only or only neighborhood in the city that was carried by Trump). 

Thats just the way it is Sean. The "progressives" have the integrated neighborhood and the conservatives are homogeneously white. Its like that just about everywhere. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @7.1.5    4 months ago
You really don't know the democrats started the KKK

Got anything from this millennium? Of course not. But since you went there. By today's standards, Lincoln would be a far left wing liberal, so would Jusus. 

How many democrats are in the KKK today? I would wager that it's less than 1%. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.12    4 months ago
One of them, Beverly, is an integrated neighborhood and is considered liberal politically

I was baptized at Saint Barnabas and still go to the area every few years for family.  As far as I've seen, "progressive" Beverly is still pretty segregated on a block by block basis. Not too many whites east of the Metra... Progressive white Beverly residents  are very Democratic, and very certain to send their kids to private, overwhelmingly white schools.   

But again, I was talking about the Progressives from decades ago.  The grandfathers of today's current Beverly residents, loyal Kennedy/LBJ voters who stoned MLK for trying to integrate the area.  

You cite Coates as approvingly as anyone on this board. Are you suggesting he's wrong for pointing out that the some of more virulent southern racists were progressives? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.13    4 months ago
incoln would be a far left wing libera

Now that's funny!  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.16  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.8    4 months ago

True enough I mean Segregation Joe is clearly one of the most racist politicians still alive according to 2016 democratic AOC and company rules we all live by.

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1.17  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.2    4 months ago

It’s reflective of the whole SPLC attitude on the issues here.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1.18  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.14    4 months ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.9    4 months ago
And they were 100% conservative and Christian and racist.

And Southern.  All states of the former CSA need to pay up. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.1.19    4 months ago

And Democratic-majority and led.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.20    4 months ago
And Democratic-majority and led.

In the South.  Northern Dems had nothing to do with the CSA or slavery and vigorously and overwhelmingly joined the Union army to destroy it.   You must have missed that in high school American history. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7.1.21    4 months ago

A Democrat is a Democrat--be they from California, Texas, New York, Florida, or Alaska.

So you now are claiming that no Northern Democrats ever owned slaves?

That is laughable at best and sheer madness at worst.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.23  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.22    4 months ago
So you now are claiming that no Northern Democrats ever owned slaves?

Of course not but at the time of the War of Southern* Aggression all  northern states (i.e. above the Mason-Dixon line) had abolished slavery by 1821. Four states (MO, KY, MD, DE) had slaves right up to 1861 but joined the Union and 50 counties of VA seceded from that state to form WV and join the union so one could argue they, too are responsible for reparations along with the Confederacy but by not supporting the South I'm giving them a pass.  

*The South launched a pre-emptive attack on Ft. Sumter, S.C., thus committing treason against the United States and bear full responsibility for starting the war that still ranks no. 1 in casualties in our history.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.24  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @7.1.3    4 months ago
You seem to forget the 100 years of death and racism the democrats were responsible for I don't.

Southern Democrats.....the bill should go to the South.  Changing parties didn't change who were the racists, segregationists, KKKers and all around scum.  All they did was change the letter from D to R. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.25  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.14    4 months ago
As far as I've seen,

No further comment necessary.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.1.26  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.22    4 months ago
A Democrat is a Democrat--be they from California, Texas, New York, Florida, or Alaska.

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

 
 
 
cjcold
8  cjcold    4 months ago

This guy played way too much football without a helmet.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

The guilty party was the South...so all reparations should be extracted from that party of the country.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @9    4 months ago
The guilty party was the South...so all reparations should be extracted from that party of the country.

Right on! Everyone knows the South was a party!

And that all Southerners never leave and stay only in the South!

LMAO!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    4 months ago
Right on! Everyone knows the South was a party!

That breaks all desperation records even by your standards, Tex.  Your discomfort with the facts about your state and your region is taking its toll. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months ago

I wonder if Mr. Owens appreciates the contradiction of his blaming Dems of the past (and only of the South) who ran to the Republican party (the party he now supports) when Civil Rights laws were being pushed by a Southern Dem president and  passed by a coalition of Northern Dems and Republicans while the person sponsoring the bill for restitution (which he supports) is a black Democratic congresswoman while his own party is  four square against it.  It's mind boggling cognitive dissonance so he's definitely in the right party.   

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dean Moriarty
KDMichigan
MrFrost
jungkonservativ111
Sunshine
XDm9mm
Save Me Jebus
Ender
Tessylo
JBB


87 visitors