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
Who is online
83 visitors
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.
Well, that explains why Democrats voted for Obama....twice. /s
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.
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
His history lesson must have stopped with the Roosevelt Administration.
Sounds you're saying that old house negro can't think for himself.
Oh look kids! It's the No True Scotsman fallacy! Racist version.
White liberals are the only ones who know how "real" blacks think.
How fascinating. Saying racist things isn't a violation, but pointing it out is.
How fascinating. You called him a racist, he didn't say anything racist.
Spot on.
I actually didn't.
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.
You and Sean made good points here and are right.
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.
Bingo...
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.
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.
Why shouldn't I since all so many ignore all of the ultra conservatives that are 'good segregations' NOW.
Not as funny as how desperately neo-nationalists want to forget the last 50 years of it.
Oh then please DO tell me what IS the defining characteristic.
Hell you moved the goal posts from New Deal Democrats to 'progressive'. Bad form...
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.
Everyone who supports separating families at the border and detaining separated children while deporting their parents.
What part of my statement don't you understand?
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.
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!
I understand perfectly well what YOU fucking asked:
My reply was perfectly cogent and on point.
So you understood it just fine but would rather babble than address it.
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 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.
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.
So you can't have a discussion without moving the goal posts.
I can't understand thing for you Sean.
Per yours, you get personal when you've got nothing.
I did Sean. READ the thread.
Back to your MO Sean..
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.
Thanks for the laugh.
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...
Sean is correct on every point in this thread.
Your proclamations aren't worth the bits used to post them.
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.
Started with:
Ended with:
Yes I see that you switched the words.
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.
So you mean that the Democrats and their liberal masters are still the original racists?
They continue to show it to this day.
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.
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.
Want to try that again?
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.
Conservatives Opposed Medicare..
Well, then Biden's friend Senator Tallmedge is a liberal. Just like some of the other signers of the Southern Manifesto....
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.
He sounds like a sell out to me.
Of course he does.
The very same applies to the comment in 5.1.8
Well color me confused.
Burgess wants reparations or does he not?
Maybe he favors them but not for himself.
This guy played way too much football without a helmet.
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!
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.
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.