- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well, I'd take that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves. So what freedoms did they get from Republicans?
Yes, it is. What did you take away from that?
Democrats sure weren't helping the cause of " equality for all " back in the day.
They filibustered the 1964 Voting rights act.
They were the party behind Jim Crow and segregation and the KKK.
Grand dragon...democrat before and after. Based on what Malcolm X said about democrats and blacks...I'd say it was spot on.
I got more in 10 WEEKS or even 10 DAYS then you go in 10 YEARS.Fair enough. You first. Do muslim acting in the Name of faith. I'll do Christians. (and for the record I am not an athiest and you can find plenty of posts from me defending christianity on this site. I dont hate or dislike christianity or christians. I am simply proving a point).
Target time frame will be the last 10 years.
Yep...that's what happens when 97% of your voting population blindly give their support to one party based on he myth and lie that they care about you. Geezus...they have been consistently ****ed for 50 years and haven't even gotten flowers. But...on the plus side they DID get a street named after MLK in every major city.
The majority were Republicans. Although many believe that Black civil rights began in 1964 (and sadly many Blacks believe this) it was President Eisenhower who ordered troops to force the desegregation of Americans schools opposed, of course, by the Democrats. Our Documents - Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957) The Democrats were the authors of these laws, and still use Black people for their own ends. Lyndon Johnson summed it up best. "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years".Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson - Wikiquote
The majority were Republicans.
So Democrats' past is fine, but Republicans' past is off limits?
To me it's something to keep tabs on and see what comes out of it, similar to the guy up in Canada.
Intelligence analysts for some time have been suggesting lone wolf actors who become attracted to the message of Islamists and seek to "do their part" locally, as an entirely independent lone wolf "cell" disconnected from the organization that essentially "motivated them", could end up being the more dangerous threat in regards to various forms of terrorism.
There's reasonable EARLY evidence with both of these gentleman to suggest that it's possible the motives surrounding their illegal activity is directly inspired by, and in a weird sort of way in support of, groups like ISIS. As the investigations go on it'll be very interesting to see if those links actually strengthen or remain simply fringe notions without a truly solid backing.
As to all the concern about the disproportionate outrage or concern or attention, I do truly hope that the same posters have in the past and will in the future put forth similar concern for those grossly over reacting to mass shootings....an issue accounting for a miniscule amount of homocides or even gun deaths (which is a questionable stat in and of itself as it typically includes suicides) in this country.
The vast, vast majority of Northern Democrats AND Republicans voted for the '64 CRA; the vast, vast majority of Southern Democrats AND Republicans voted against it. Support for civil rights was divided by geography, not party. Why do you continue to repeat your same debunked lies?
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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%)
It appears that in neither vote did more republicans vote for the bill than democrats, although it would appear that you COULD claim a higher percentage of republicans voted for rather than against.
But most of that is due to the democrats being stronger in the southern states, as you say.
I dunno.Am I in the wrong thread? I could have sworn that this thread was about the Islamic convert wielding a hatchet and going after NY cops....Or has it been decided by libs that there is nothing to see here move along....Kind of like Ebola....
I dunno.
Am I in the wrong thread? I could have sworn that this thread was about the Islamic convert wielding a hatchet and going after NY cops....Or has it been decided by libs that there is nothing to see here move along....Kind of like Ebola....
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead And GM Is Alive, You Racist. must stick to the program, believe in the program, must stick to the program, believe in the program....
Where did you pull that from?So Democrats' past is fine, but Republicans' past is off limits?
Lmao... are you kidding?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182
The majority of people who voted for CRA'64 were Democrats in both the House & Senate. Don't play this game, Grant. You'll lose.
Eisenhower enforced a SCOTUS ruling against his own personal feelings. Nothing wrong with that, admirable really.
It was the Democrats who were fighting for the freedom of slaves then? Okay, have it your way.Well, I'd take that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves. So what freedoms did they get from Republicans?
Actually, JFK was a champion of civil rights. Also, he wasn't a Republican.
Congress in 1964 had a Democratic majority in both houses. Without at least some Democratic support, the Civil Rights Act could not have passed.
88th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Am I in the wrong thread? I could have sworn that this thread was about the Islamic convert wielding a hatchet and going after NY cops....Or has it been decided by libs that there is nothing to see here move along....Kind of like Ebola....
No, I don't think so. Al Sharpton Gets Civil Rights History Wrong - Katie Pavlich
But his feelings weren't based on race.
If you insist on looking for heroic Democrats regarding race you could try Harry Truman and his desegregation of the military. The rest? Not so much.
Actually, I'm not one to want to ban or severely restrict guns (depending on your definition of "severe." We all have different lines of severity that we aren't willing to cross).
A majority of Muslims don't do anything like this. Especially in the US and Canada. I wouldn't call on restricting all of a group based on the actions of a few.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?