Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
I believe in free association. I believe a business should do business with whomever they want, and refuse business for any reason. If there is a racist business out there, then people will stop utilizing them. Just like this cake baker who refuses to make cakes for happy marriages.
Could you imagine a business out there being successful if they didn't serve blacks?
Maybe at one time it was necessary, but I think we have evolved as a people.
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
I believe in free association. I believe a business should do business with whomever they want, and refuse business for any reason. If there is a racist business out there, then people will stop utilizing them. Just like this cake baker who refuses to make cakes for happy marriages.
Could you imagine a business out there being successful if they didn't serve blacks?
Maybe at one time it was necessary, but I think we have evolved as a people.
Raid...You're way off on this subject. You win nothing.
And It has nothing to do with me.
They have no right to undermine the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces on the airwaves in time of war, when they have no clue on how military operations are conducted. Let alone military intelligence.
Secondly, A real patriot defends and supports his government and it's fighting men in the time of war.
They are phony, and you have been brainwashed by them.
.
From Teddy Roosevelt:
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
Raid...You're way off on this subject. You win nothing.
And It has nothing to do with me.
They have no right to undermine the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces on the airwaves in time of war, when they have no clue on how military operations are conducted. Let alone military intelligence.
Secondly, A real patriot defends and supports his government and it's fighting men in the time of war.
They are phony, and you have been brainwashed by them.
.
From Teddy Roosevelt:
" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. "
I believe in free association. I believe a business should do business with whomever they want, and refuse business for any reason. If there is a racist business out there, then people will stop utilizing them. Just like this cake baker who refuses to make cakes for happy marriages.
Could you imagine a business out there being successful if they didn't serve blacks?
Maybe at one time it was necessary, but I think we have evolved as a people.
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
I believe in free association. I believe a business should do business with whomever they want, and refuse business for any reason. If there is a racist business out there, then people will stop utilizing them. Just like this cake baker who refuses to make cakes for happy marriages.
Could you imagine a business out there being successful if they didn't serve blacks?
Maybe at one time it was necessary, but I think we have evolved as a people.
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
Time to start banging my head against a brick wall
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
Time to start banging my head against a brick wall
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
#1 it must be tough being such a victim throughout life. I hope you can find some happiness amid your oppression.
#2 Gun rights are not a racial issue, some of the first restrictions on guns in fact were so that blacks could not have guns.
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
#1 it must be tough being such a victim throughout life. I hope you can find some happiness amid your oppression.
#2 Gun rights are not a racial issue, some of the first restrictions on guns in fact were so that blacks could not have guns.
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
You are kidding? Where do you have evidence of this type of mindset?
We haven’t evolved as a society at all. I have no idea how a person could make a naive claim. I believe white only businesses would thrive in today’s society. The election of Obama proved society hasn’t evolved at all, one bit. Republicans today resemble the democrats of the 1800s.
White people are savage animals. The government must control them. If the government didn’t put restraints on whites… the country would be filled with white only states and white only businesses and people openly carrying firearms in courts, malls, schools, restaurants, parks etc…
It would start with white only businesses and evolve into white only states, neighborhoods, schools, malls, restaurants, parks etc… It would be madness if states rights people had their way. It would open up a can of worms. The south would truly rise, again. It would spark another civil war.
I feel like I’m playing the role of Thaddeus Stevens and you’re playing the role of Fernando Wood.
You and other republicans have the exact same mindset as Fernando Wood and the democrats of the 1800s. It's scary
You are kidding? Where do you have evidence of this type of mindset?
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
I thought the article explained it fairly well---there is more detail to it of course.
Again...Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
Goldwater believed that white only businesses had a right to exist and that a business had a right to be bigoted and racist. That shows his true character.
The second part is naive because all Nixon would have to say is states’ rights and law and order.... in order to get his message across. When he said states’ rights… racists knew he meant white only… and when he said law and order… he meant target non-whites, protesters, demonstrators, and civil rights groups.
Nixon couldn’t compromise on civil rights because that would alienate a large percentage of civilized voters. It had nothing to do with him believing in civil rights.
Martin Luther King clearly discussed his disdain in his biography of what he thought of Goldwater and the Republican Party. Ralph Abernathy, Joseph Lowery, and Bayard Rustin all switched from republican to democrat because of Goldwater’s actions.
The democrats switching parties with republicans isn’t a myth. It’s a documented and historical fact.
I thought the article explained it fairly well---there is more detail to it of course.
Again...Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
#1 it must be tough being such a victim throughout life. I hope you can find some happiness amid your oppression.
#2 Gun rights are not a racial issue, some of the first restrictions on guns in fact were so that blacks could not have guns.
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
#1 it must be tough being such a victim throughout life. I hope you can find some happiness amid your oppression.
#2 Gun rights are not a racial issue, some of the first restrictions on guns in fact were so that blacks could not have guns.
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
I thought the article explained it fairly well---there is more detail to it of course.
Again...Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
I could debunk everything that article posted. I don’t want to make anything so. It is what it is. I don’t have to force anything fit. It’s like a puzzle. All the pieces fall right in place.
Just like I showed you that the drug war was all about race. I could show you that the parties switched but what would be the point. You’re just going to dismiss it anyway.
Telling a republican that the parties switched is like telling a Muslim that their religion is violent. No matter how much evidence you present they are going to deny it.
I thought the article explained it fairly well---there is more detail to it of course.
Again...Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. It is hard for us to deviate from our leanings so we try to make everything fit them is all.
I could debunk everything that article posted. I don’t want to make anything so. It is what it is. I don’t have to force anything fit. It’s like a puzzle. All the pieces fall right in place.
Just like I showed you that the drug war was all about race. I could show you that the parties switched but what would be the point. You’re just going to dismiss it anyway.
Telling a republican that the parties switched is like telling a Muslim that their religion is violent. No matter how much evidence you present they are going to deny it.
I could debunk everything that article posted. I don’t want to make anything so. It is what it is. I don’t have to force anything fit. It’s like a puzzle. All the pieces fall right in place.
Just like I showed you that the drug war was all about race. I could show you that the parties switched but what would be the point. You’re just going to dismiss it anyway.
Telling a republican that the parties switched is like telling a Muslim that their religion is violent. No matter how much evidence you present they are going to deny it.
Yes--if legitimately debunked I believe it---but like you accuse me of---you do not want to believe the guy that says there is more to it.
Sure---some switched parties but you are trying to oversimplify it. Just like the war on drugs---it is not a one reason solution to the problem. So, when someone says that is not entirely the fault of the war on drugs you don't want to believe that. You also want the racist thing to be the sole reason for the party-switch. It is not that easy.
I could debunk everything that article posted. I don’t want to make anything so. It is what it is. I don’t have to force anything fit. It’s like a puzzle. All the pieces fall right in place.
Just like I showed you that the drug war was all about race. I could show you that the parties switched but what would be the point. You’re just going to dismiss it anyway.
Telling a republican that the parties switched is like telling a Muslim that their religion is violent. No matter how much evidence you present they are going to deny it.
Yes--if legitimately debunked I believe it---but like you accuse me of---you do not want to believe the guy that says there is more to it.
Sure---some switched parties but you are trying to oversimplify it. Just like the war on drugs---it is not a one reason solution to the problem. So, when someone says that is not entirely the fault of the war on drugs you don't want to believe that. You also want the racist thing to be the sole reason for the party-switch. It is not that easy.
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
Give examples of this elsewhere? No way the vice-versa would ever be true anywhere else? It really does sound pretty bad.
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
Give examples of this elsewhere? No way the vice-versa would ever be true anywhere else? It really does sound pretty bad.
Yes--if legitimately debunked I believe it---but like you accuse me of---you do not want to believe the guy that says there is more to it.
Sure---some switched parties but you are trying to oversimplify it. Just like the war on drugs---it is not a one reason solution to the problem. So, when someone says that is not entirely the fault of the war on drugs you don't want to believe that. You also want the racist thing to be the sole reason for the party-switch. It is not that easy.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon - John Ehrlichman
Nixon "emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon - H. R. Haldeman
Goldwater got Lincoln hating Southern voters in 1964 to vote Republican for the first time ever.
Here’s what Martin Luther King said about the Republican Party and Barry Goldwater in his autobiography…
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the group with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation.
On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated.
On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
I have read a lot of books about race and the drug war in my life. I
haven’t read any evidence that shows there were other factors involved.
You’re trying to make it a complex issue when it’s not.
This pretty much sums it up. No other information is necessary to form a conclusion. Anyone who denies it has serious comprehension issues.
Yes--if legitimately debunked I believe it---but like you accuse me of---you do not want to believe the guy that says there is more to it.
Sure---some switched parties but you are trying to oversimplify it. Just like the war on drugs---it is not a one reason solution to the problem. So, when someone says that is not entirely the fault of the war on drugs you don't want to believe that. You also want the racist thing to be the sole reason for the party-switch. It is not that easy.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon - John Ehrlichman
Nixon "emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon - H. R. Haldeman
Goldwater got Lincoln hating Southern voters in 1964 to vote Republican for the first time ever.
Here’s what Martin Luther King said about the Republican Party and Barry Goldwater in his autobiography…
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the group with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation.
On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated.
On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
I have read a lot of books about race and the drug war in my life. I
haven’t read any evidence that shows there were other factors involved.
You’re trying to make it a complex issue when it’s not.
This pretty much sums it up. No other information is necessary to form a conclusion. Anyone who denies it has serious comprehension issues.
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon - John Ehrlichman
Nixon "emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon - H. R. Haldeman
What are each of these talking about specifically---or are you saying it is tacit?
"Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it." Counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon - John Ehrlichman
Nixon "emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon - H. R. Haldeman
What are each of these talking about specifically---or are you saying it is tacit?
Goldwater got Lincoln hating Southern voters in 1964 to vote Republican for the first time ever.
So? What is the exact point here? That they should have voted Democratic even though they were against civil rights? Racists would have voted for anyone instead of Democrats at that time, didn't have to be Barry and he certainly didn't need much persuasion to do it.
Here’s what Martin Luther King said about the Republican Party and Barry Goldwater in his autobiography…
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the group with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation.
On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated.
On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
Not sure if this has a bent to it or not---certainly from MLK perspective---I agree. But is it correct to take just his word for it and base your whole philosophy around it?
Goldwater got Lincoln hating Southern voters in 1964 to vote Republican for the first time ever.
So? What is the exact point here? That they should have voted Democratic even though they were against civil rights? Racists would have voted for anyone instead of Democrats at that time, didn't have to be Barry and he certainly didn't need much persuasion to do it.
Here’s what Martin Luther King said about the Republican Party and Barry Goldwater in his autobiography…
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the group with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation.
On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated.
On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
Not sure if this has a bent to it or not---certainly from MLK perspective---I agree. But is it correct to take just his word for it and base your whole philosophy around it?
And again---you seem to be looking for an excuse for black families struggles and like a ready made war on drugs. I agree that it is worse on blacks. But it is not the sole reason for their struggles and when people say it, it just seems like a cop out and lack of taking responsibilty for their actions, etc. As we have said before. I mean why is it so hard to raise your kid not to get involved in these activites? Again, I know several black families that did it---even single parent ones. So, I just think it is wrong and does those families a disservicxe to say that it is hopeless and the government and the white guy is agianst us.
Way before civil rights and War on Drugs there were more successful families that stayed together and did better in school, etc. raised great kids. So, we know it can be done under much more racists policies and much more poverty ridden times.
And again---you seem to be looking for an excuse for black families struggles and like a ready made war on drugs. I agree that it is worse on blacks. But it is not the sole reason for their struggles and when people say it, it just seems like a cop out and lack of taking responsibilty for their actions, etc. As we have said before. I mean why is it so hard to raise your kid not to get involved in these activites? Again, I know several black families that did it---even single parent ones. So, I just think it is wrong and does those families a disservicxe to say that it is hopeless and the government and the white guy is agianst us.
Way before civil rights and War on Drugs there were more successful families that stayed together and did better in school, etc. raised great kids. So, we know it can be done under much more racists policies and much more poverty ridden times.
Working and in hurry to get outta here so maybe typos, etc.. But you get my gist---about the same as before---need slightly more evidence than people with a slant to writing their books---when the hardcore evidence shows me differently. Why not an unbiased study? Like the Walter Williams thing a few weeks ago. Or the Sowell I quoted you---both are blacks and see it this way, etc.
Working and in hurry to get outta here so maybe typos, etc.. But you get my gist---about the same as before---need slightly more evidence than people with a slant to writing their books---when the hardcore evidence shows me differently. Why not an unbiased study? Like the Walter Williams thing a few weeks ago. Or the Sowell I quoted you---both are blacks and see it this way, etc.
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
I was simply asking if you had examples somewhere that this is happening? And if the reverse would ever be true with blacks or Asians, American Indians, etc?
WHAT? I never said I was a victim? What does anything I posted about have anything to do with being oppressed or a victim?
The government has to place restraints on white people. If the government didn’t put restraints we would see white people gun toting in the oddest places and “whites only” signs everywhere.
I was pointing out that white people’s judgment cannot be trusted when it comes to guns or race. If white people’s judgment could be trusted there would be no need for the civil rights acts or gun laws.
I was simply asking if you had examples somewhere that this is happening? And if the reverse would ever be true with blacks or Asians, American Indians, etc?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.