• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The racial divide.... deepens.

HTColeman said:
You haven't refuted anything actually, I'm starting to seriously doubt your home stories, how 'bout using actual references, statistics, etc.

I was referring to the bold statement that Bush made about gay marriage, but he never planned on banning gay marriage, his right hand man's daughter is gay. He just wanted votes, the Bible even says not to parade your faith, just to stand fast. Bush parades his "faith" to the public because he knows that the majority of Americans that vote are Christian.

Start a new thread if you want to debate gay marriage...This is about the racial divide...........
 
Navy Pride said:
Start a new thread if you want to debate gay marriage...This is about the racial divide...........
:spin: Cut the crap and actually debate. Yall were talking about democrats 'exploiting' minorities for their votes and I pointed out that Republicans exploit Christians in the same way, make statements just for their votes, I'm not debating gay marriage. Republicans are just looking for votes just like every other party, and yall haven't talked about the racial divide in the last page of posts. You've been talking about Pro Life, the navy, etc, etc. so cut the crap.
 
HTColeman said:
:spin: Cut the crap and actually debate. Yall were talking about democrats 'exploiting' minorities for their votes and I pointed out that Republicans exploit Christians in the same way, make statements just for their votes, I'm not debating gay marriage. Republicans are just looking for votes just like every other party, and yall haven't talked about the racial divide in the last page of posts. You've been talking about Pro Life, the navy, etc, etc. so cut the crap.

Again now try and concentrate I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!!!!. I have issues with both parties...... That said President Bush is a "Born Again Christian." He is anti abortion and gay marriage......He is pro death penalty and pro a strong military.......Those are issues I agree with him ....Your candiate in 2004 was the opposite on these issues...................That is why I voted for President Bush....I might even had voted for a moderate like Leiberman but since the democratic party is so controlled by the far left he had no chance......

You have all this love for democrats.....Did you know that in 1964 they the majority of them were against the Civil Rights act and filibustered its passage?

Its true that both parties want the votes of minoritites but the democratic party has been using blacks for years and a lot of them are wising up to that now.............

Its amazing that you are not.............
 
Last edited:
Instead of going through and reading 6 pages of posts. Can someone tell me if its whiteys fault or not? I would assume we did something wrong and or something not so right. LOL
 
Navy Pride said:
Again now try and concentrate I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!!!!. I have issues with both parties...... That said President Bush is a "Born Again Christian." He is anti abortion and gay marriage......He is pro death penalty and pro a strong military.......Those are issues I agree with him ....Your candiate in 2004 was the opposite on these issues...................That is why I voted for President Bush....I might even had voted for a moderate like Leiberman but since the democratic party is so controlled by the far left he had no chance......

You have all this love for democrats.....Did you know that in 1964 they the majority of them were against the Civil Rights act and filibustered its passage?

Its true that both parties want the votes of minoritites but the democratic party has been using blacks for years and a lot of them are wising up to that now.............

Its amazing that you are not.............

Watch your judgements on me..........................................................

I never said you were democrat or republican, I also never said I love the democratic party. I support democratic views, but as far as I am concerned all politicians are pretty corrupt in one way or another. I was simply pointing out that everyone exploits a certain group in order for votes, that is all political parties do, try to get votes. Perhaps blacks tend to vote democrat because they are the only ones who try to appeal to them......................
 
HTColeman said:
Watch your judgements on me..........................................................

I never said you were democrat or republican, I also never said I love the democratic party. I support democratic views, but as far as I am concerned all politicians are pretty corrupt in one way or another. I was simply pointing out that everyone exploits a certain group in order for votes, that is all political parties do, try to get votes. Perhaps blacks tend to vote democrat because they are the only ones who try to appeal to them......................

Perhaps blacks tend to vote democrat because they are the only ones who try to appeal to them.

You really have to be kidding me..They use you...They make promises they can't keep..........A lot of Black Americans are wising up to their broken promises......

I hope you wake up sometime........
 
One reason many african americans might vote democrats is because they have always heard that the Democrats are for the backs. also it was the democrats that put the civil rights acts into effect. it might also be a factor of how money is used. democrats want to give people money so that they can spend it however they want to. everyone gets like $20. a new chair. while republicans are always seen as giving to buisness, and many dont like that. they want instant money. if you give buisness money, they can expand and create new jobs giving more people in low economic areas places to work. does anyone ever explain it to them?
 
Navy Pride said:
You really have to be kidding me..They use you...They make promises they can't keep..........A lot of Black Americans are wising up to their broken promises......

I hope you wake up sometime........

Once again, watch your judgements. You don't know my real name, much less who I trust and my political views, I suggest you wise up and stop thinking you know so much.

I noticed how you skipped over the majority of my post, that's o.k., you didn't know what to say, it happens to the best of us. As far as I am concerned, every politician does exactly what you have said. But people vote for them because at least they will do something for their vote, rather than a party that is not known to even concern themselves with their issues. Republicans throw the word "God" around just to get votes, but they rarely mean it. But Christians vote for them because the other party is against a lot of what they stand for. However, IMO using God as a political platform is much worse than most of the other political tactics. Don't you dare assume that I agree with everything the democratic.
 
t125eagle said:
One reason many african americans might vote democrats is because they have always heard that the Democrats are for the backs. also it was the democrats that put the civil rights acts into effect. it might also be a factor of how money is used. democrats want to give people money so that they can spend it however they want to. everyone gets like $20. a new chair. while republicans are always seen as giving to buisness, and many dont like that. they want instant money. if you give buisness money, they can expand and create new jobs giving more people in low economic areas places to work. does anyone ever explain it to them?

My friend when it comes to the Civil Rights act you are dead wrong......The Democrats from the South caused the act to be filibustered...The only reason it passed was because of the Republicans......
 
HTColeman said:
Once again, watch your judgements. You don't know my real name, much less who I trust and my political views, I suggest you wise up and stop thinking you know so much.

I noticed how you skipped over the majority of my post, that's o.k., you didn't know what to say, it happens to the best of us. As far as I am concerned, every politician does exactly what you have said. But people vote for them because at least they will do something for their vote, rather than a party that is not known to even concern themselves with their issues. Republicans throw the word "God" around just to get votes, but they rarely mean it. But Christians vote for them because the other party is against a lot of what they stand for. However, IMO using God as a political platform is much worse than most of the other political tactics. Don't you dare assume that I agree with everything the democratic.

Your right I don't know you but I can go by your posts and you have the Jackson and Sharpton talking points down pat.......

If that is not so then let me hear you condemn them........
 
Navy Pride said:
Your right I don't know you but I can go by your posts and you have the Jackson and Sharpton talking points down pat.......

If that is not so then let me hear you condemn them........

You are so childish, are you trying to use some sort of peer pressure? 'Let me hear you condemn them'? I am not trying to prove anything to you, you are absolutely ridiculous. I don't condemn anyone, well for you I will make an exception. I don't agree with everyone, but that is not room to condemn them, that is not my place. But to appease you, I did say that the federal response was not about race, and I thought of that all by myself. Imagine that a young negro that can think all by himself, not from the media or politicians, but out his own mind! Amazing isn't it! BTW, as far as Southern Democrats, that party is much different than current Democrats, go research them.
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Southern-Democrats

In fact, I'll make the research easier, the political parties are completely different from now. The Southern Democrats were the ones that started the secession and supported slavery, here is an excerpt,

"After World War II, the civil rights movement took hold. A new wave of young, liberal Democrats were changing the face of the party, and Southerners were feeling alienated. However, most still voted loyally for their party. The old conservative stalwarts were trying to resist the changes that were sweeping the nation. With the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was the final straw for many Southern Democrats, who began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression. World War II was a truly global conflict with many facets: immense human suffering, fierce indoctrinations, and the use of new, extremely devastating weapons like the atom bomb World War II, also known as the Second World War, was by far the bloodiest, most expensive, and most significant war in... The Civil Rights Movement in the United States has been a long, primarily nonviolent struggle to bring full civil rights and equality under the law to primarily African American citizens of United States. ... President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... The Great Depression was a massive global economic recession (or depression) that ran from 1929 to 1939. ...

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until the 1980s, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today are mostly urban liberals, while rural residents tend to be either Republicans, although there are a sizable number of conservative Democrats. Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the thirty-seventh President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. ... In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states, originally through veiled opposition to civil rights laws. ... The Deep South Red states show the core of the Deep South. ... // Events and trends The 1980s marked an abrupt shift towards more conservative lifestyles after the momentous cultural revolutions which took place in the 60s and 70s and the definition of the AIDS virus in 1981. ... // Events and trends The 1990s are generally classified as having moved slightly away from the more conservative 1980s, but otherwise retaining the same mindset. ... 1994 was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated the International year of the Family. ..."

Basically, in the 1960's, after the event in question, the Democratic party became a liberal party and the Southern Democrats (who opposed civil rights for blacks and supported slavery) moved over to the Republican party.
 
People will ignore that which does not support their ideological agenda. Who put those people in those two arenas, the black mayor of New Orleans.Who should have made some provision for them there,duh.
The federal govt. did drop the ball the first to screw up were the Mayor and Governor.
 
The racial divide needs to deepen if we are to hold on to our racial integrity.
 
Stu Ghatze said:
I'm sorry but I just do not believe that most of our black citizens believe that whatsoever.

True, ..that the liberal mouthpices WANT to help convey that MESSAGE, & they love it when the media picks up on such things, but I do not believe that at all!

It is foolish to believe that a natural disaster would make our black citizens in New Orleans affected feel that way toward Bush. As a matter of fact, ..it wasn't until the Bush haters got on the bandwagon, (Howard Dean etc.)

Amazing the rest of the victims in the other states, ..& many are also black did not necessarilly buy into that horsedump.

If one wants to discuss as to "WHY" it took a hurricane in New Orleans to use the poor black americans as an "example" of disinfranchised, & economically locked out; indeed lets ask?

THat city has been run, & controlled by DEMOCRATS for roughly 60 years, ..& it has NEVER been about NOT getting enough federal funding!

Liberals, & the modern liberal media OVERUSE, & LOVE to hear the word, 'racism'...but only when it is EMPLOYED against a GOP president!

In truth, ..the fema aid that came in the aftermath of Katrina was actually NOT any slower than any other major hurricanes; ..but since Bush has been the whipping post for everything the last couple of years, ..sure why not blame him.

THe incredible truth that CANNOT be denied is best asked in 1-simple question: tHe mayor of New Orleans is also black; ...he had at least 1,000 school buses, plus public transportation buses, & at least 2-days notice BEFORE the hurricane hit; WHY DID HE NOT USE THEM TO EVACUATE THE POOREST OF THE NEW ORLEAN"S RESIDENTS???

Why didn't the GOVERNOR call for the national Guard to be activated SOONER, ..SHE is the commander & Chief of the Guard units of her state??

Racism,...hardly! More likely an "entitlement" mentality for many of the NEW ORLEANS poor that had been going on for decades; & a convenient whipping post in Pres. Bush, & it was disgraceful to blame HIM, & then charge racism....when the first priority & RESPONSIBILITY is to the LOCAL MAYOR FIRST, & THEN the GOVERNOR secondly, ..& the last stage is the federal government!

THe buses evacuated NOBODY...WHY WHY WHY..? And shall we also blame Bush because the residents of New Orleans are poor, & black...? AS stated above, ..the democrats have ran that city for nearly 60 years, & that city has even recieved MORE funding than California at times.

60 years of social programs for the poor, & a federal treasury that was always OPENED for them. I thought democrats & liberals were best at redistributing everybody elses wealth, ..& ending poverty & promoting fairness, & equal opportunity??????????????

Racism charges just help keep the blank federal checks coming in order to prove that nobody is being racist, ..& the squeaky wheel ALWAYS gets the oil!

Were any federal rescue workers not rescuing black citizens; or were they deliberatley rescuing the white citizens first, ..perhaps making our black citizens wait for whitey's rescue first?

The cry of racism is getting old, ..& the charges are blatant lies kept alive to try to hurt Bush for the sake of the DNC, & their little helpers (media), & the charges are despicable to say the least! :roll:


AMEN! ! ! ! :applaud :rock :bravo:
 
In case anyone forgot.It was Black man that sent those people to those arenas.It was black man that didn't have any provisions at those arenas.It was black man they didn't use any of New Orleans thousands of buses in the evacuation . So lets watch trying to use the " Race Card " shall we.
 
JOHNYJ said:
In case anyone forgot.It was Black man that sent those people to those arenas.It was black man that didn't have any provisions at those arenas.It was black man they didn't use any of New Orleans thousands of buses in the evacuation . So lets watch trying to use the " Race Card " shall we.
A black man who probably thought FEMA had actually read the Hurricane Pam study that FEMA itself funded. Michael Brown didn't even know there were people in the arena despite that fact it was all in the report he funded.
 
Last edited:
Aryan Imperium said:
The racial divide needs to deepen if we are to hold on to our racial integrity.

wow. hmmm...america is a melting pot of different cultures and races and religions. Why seperate ourselves? Its our closeness and willingness to bond together that make america so great. all of thes cultures and upbringings bring in new ideas..these ideas are what move america along. why mess up something that has been happening in the US since its conception?
 
RE : t125Eagle
America has never been the melting Pot its always called. A Mulligan Stew is closer to the truth.
Everytime the govt. tries to force diferent groups to blend together without the necessary preparation it fails.
Telling the truth on racial questions is not an american trait and especialy among liberals.
 
[quote = KidRocks]
"Bush doesn't care about blacks"...

That, my friends, seems to be the general consensus among most African-Americans today in the aftermath of Katrina, like it or not.
Given the way the socialist-lib-dems are flogging this story, what did you expect the reaction would be of the folks who the politically correct crowd have dubbed “African-American” even though the overwhelming majority of them have never been anywhere remotely near Africa.? These folks are the willing pawns of the system spawned by the Democratic Party.
It also seems to me that the White House did indeed drop the ball on this one.
The anti-Bush media has masked the fact that the municipal government of New Orleans is the ‘first responder’, the state government of Louisiana is the ‘second responder’, and FEMA is the ‘third responder’.

The mayor of New Orleans, a Democratic first termer who has had no previous political experience had no idea of how to deal with an impending crisis. The Democratic governor of Louisiana, in office just a year and a half also had no idea of how to deal with the circumstances which were developing into crisis proportions.

Students of government will remember that Louisiana is one of fifty of the sovereign states which make up these United States of America. Governor Blanco, well within her authority to do so, repeatedly rejected the advice of Bush Administration experts to call up the National Guard and to get things moving. FEMA is powerless to act until the Governor declares an emergency and requests assistance.

With the year, FEMA conducted a mock drill in New Orleans based upon a Category 3 hurricane. Based upon this drill, emergency plans were drawn up that, if followed, could have mitigated the loss of life. The plan was in place but local officials failed to act.

The mayor and the governor chose to ignore this plan and instead condemned and criticized the President and Washington for failing to act quickly.
Just to give an example I was recently watching a segment on the news where it showed the Cubans preparing for a major hurricane, the gov't there successfully moved out about 2 million Cubans out of harms way days before the hurricane hit. A stark contrast to New Orleans and Katrina.
In Cuba, when the government says, “Move out!”, what do you think happens?

In New Orleans, the mayor declared that the people should evacuate, if they wanted to. He later said that he should have been forceful. Remember, too, that it was not Katrina that caused the most serious flooding. Two days after Katrina passed through, the levees gave way and the major flooding ensued.

This was the point at which the hundreds of school busses, being held at the ready, were flooded. That all but sealed the fate of the residents who decided to “stick around”.

Remember, too, that over the past forty years, more than a billion federal dollars were sent to the State of Louisiana, earmarked for upgrading the levees. The levees never got more than a lick and a promise. Where did all the money go? Certainly not to improve the lot of the impoverished persons that we’re now hearing about.

More such examples will be forthcoming I'm sure.
Me, too. This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to throw stones at the Bush Administration. They’ll leave no stone unthrown.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ina-poll_x.htm

Poll shows racial divide on storm response

WASHINGTON — A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds a stark racial divide in Americans' attitudes toward the plight of Hurricane Katrina's victims, the performance of President Bush and the reasons the government's early response was wanting.
Six in 10 African-Americans say the fact that most hurricane victims were poor and black was one factor behind the failure of the federal government to come to their rescue quickly. Nearly nine in 10 non-Hispanic whites say those weren't factors.

Bush, in downtown New Orleans for the first time since the hurricane hit, on Monday denied race played a role. "My attitude is this: The storm didn't discriminate, and neither will the recovery effort," he said. "When those Coast Guard choppers ... were pulling people off roofs, they didn't check the color of a person's skin. They wanted to save lives."

But Rae Clifton, 52, a Web designer in Atlanta who is black and was among those surveyed, is certain that race and class did count. "If it had been a 17-year-old white cheerleader who was caught in the water, somebody would have tried to get there faster," she says. "But because it was poor people ... it was, 'OK, we'll get there after a while.' "

The racial divide — which underscores the different perspectives whites and blacks continue to have on some aspects of life in America — could affect the debate over addressing poverty and rebuilding the region.

"Some of the concern I'm hearing (from blacks) is that New Orleans is going to be rebuilt but gentrified in such a way that they can't go back," says Michael Fauntroy, a political scientist at George Mason University who has studied relations between blacks and the GOP. The administration needs to allay those fears, he says.

In any case, Republican efforts this year to reach out to black voters have been set back. In the survey, African-Americans by 74%-16% have an unfavorable opinion of the GOP. By more than 3-1, they say Bush doesn't care about black people. By more than 2-1, whites say he does...
This article is a perfect example of stone-throwing.
 
[quote = epr64]
Division is endemic in all multicultural societies.
But the division is not only racial, it's also economical, political, social, etc.. The rule of the "rulers" seems to be "divide every way you can.. as long as they fight each other, they'll let us alone".

Multicultural societies are the only solution for a forward-leaning society. A mono-cultural society relies only (or mostly) on its past. But they have inherent flaws (as does democracy, science, etc..), as all societies that really are looking the future in the eyes. And one of the flaws they have is that cynical power- and greed-hungry politicians can use them for their own gain.

Now, did Bush, the BA, the State and/or the local powers really act late and/or without efficiency because mosty people were black, or did they do it because they are inefficient in nature (as I really believe most present politicians are, whatever their leaning or their country)? I lean towards the second solution. But now, I'm white.

IMO, grassroots politics, allowing real politicians ( people who care 'bout the state and you, not the lobbyists) to take power and govern FOR THE PEOPLE, is the only solution, apart from violent uprising. It's a longer road than uprising, but safer.

Food for thoughts.
Here’s some dessert to go with that food. Rather than direct you to a link, I think it's better to show the entire story. Obviously, it will give you indigestion.

Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of America's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

1. "Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

2. Lamm went on: "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

3. "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together."

4. Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

5. "Forth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

6. "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

7. "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."

"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

8. "Next to last, I would place all subjects off-limits - make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturist, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis' book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous...It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'

American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
What the problem is, is that Americans in general do not have the patience for minorities, and handicaps they are given. I think what needs to be taught in all schools is racial immersion classes and racial tolerance. I have a bad feeling that things will get dicey and in specific when it comes to elections. The republicans are going to be dealt with a serious blow in trying to gather the minority vote. If he had a shot, he blew it this time and blew it big..
I disagree.

The USA was built from minorities. For more than three hundred years, every nation on earth has contributed their best and worst citizens to the melting pot to produce an alloy which had the strength of steel, the durability of titanium, and the value of gold. It was the desire of immigrants to become Americans which, more than anything else, built the country into the greatest nation in the history of the world.

During the sixties, a new idea hatched within the Democratic party. It was called the Great Society and its stated goal was to 'eradicate poverty'. The method chosen was to divide the populace into classes and pander to the financial needs of the lowest class.

The consequence, intended or otherwise, was the herding of them into ghettos called municipal housing projects and slums, the destruction of families, the destruction of the public education system, and the creation of a new under-class known as generational welfare clients who are under-educated and ill-equipped to support themselves.

The political benefit, of course, was the formation of a solid political bloc of voters which was just about 100% Democratic and could be manipulated as necessary every election day.

The scheme worked so well with the blacks that the Democrats set out to divide the entire electorate into groups which they could pit against each other. I won't bother to name them because the list is long and you already know it. The point is that all are given victim status and the Democrats then claim to come to their rescue.

Hence the move to by the socialist-lib-dems and their apologists tp replace "melting pot" with "salad bowl" to describe the desire to halt the assimilation of groups in an effort to obliterate the "E Pluribus Unum" characteristic of the country.

In defense of the misguided Democrats, having suffered devastating losses at the polls in the six consecutive national elections since 1994, they don't know what else what else they can do to stop the hemmorhaging.

If they have to destroy the country in order to regain the power they wielded for forty years, they are willing to do so.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Johnson’s Great Society programs cut the minority poverty rates in half. Minority poverty rates decreased during the Clinton years and have risen each year during the Bush years.

Now, who is it that wants to keep minorities down?



Is it the Democrats whose party makeup represents people of almost all different ethnicities and social backgrounds and whose policies have historically help lift minorities out of poverty?

Or is it the Republicans whose party makeup is virtually all white, whose core constituencies are fundamentalists, white rednecks, and corporate interests, and who even though they are the party in power they wont even put the money and resources behind one black republican to get them elected to a congressional seat?


I am going to go out on a limb and say that most minorities probably feel better represented by a party that actually has minorities well represented in it, than by a bunch of a white self-righteous men who condescendingly think they know what is really best for minorities.
Can you provide some statistics to support your claims?
 
Fantasea said:
I disagree.

The USA was built from minorities. For more than three hundred years, every nation on earth has contributed their best and worst citizens to the melting pot to produce an alloy which had the strength of steel, the durability of titanium, and the value of gold. It was the desire of immigrants to become Americans which, more than anything else, built the country into the greatest nation in the history of the world.

During the sixties, a new idea hatched within the Democratic party. It was called the Great Society and its stated goal was to 'eradicate poverty'. The method chosen was to divide the populace into classes and pander to the financial needs of the lowest class.

The consequence, intended or otherwise, was the herding of them into ghettos called municipal housing projects and slums, the destruction of families, the destruction of the public education system, and the creation of a new under-class known as generational welfare clients who are under-educated and ill-equipped to support themselves.

The political benefit, of course, was the formation of a solid political bloc of voters which was just about 100% Democratic and could be manipulated as necessary every election day.

The scheme worked so well with the blacks that the Democrats set out to divide the entire electorate into groups which they could pit against each other. I won't bother to name them because the list is long and you already know it. The point is that all are given victim status and the Democrats then claim to come to their rescue.

Hence the move to by the socialist-lib-dems and their apologists tp replace "melting pot" with "salad bowl" to describe the desire to halt the assimilation of groups in an effort to obliterate the "E Pluribus Unum" characteristic of the country.

In defense of the misguided Democrats, having suffered devastating losses at the polls in the six consecutive national elections since 1994, they don't know what else what else they can do to stop the hemmorhaging.

If they have to destroy the country in order to regain the power they wielded for forty years, they are willing to do so.

Can we some statistics to support your claims?
 
Back
Top Bottom