Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem

[Going Commando]

12 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Answer, unfortunately is zero for both parties.  Both parties do not give a damn about anyone other than themselves.  They only care about what gets them elected.

 

Who exactly do you think makes up these sinister political parties that only give a damn about themselves?  Further, do you think that because there aren't any black Republicans that there must not be any black Democrats either?  Do you think that because the GoP doesn't have any black constituencies to serve that the Democrats don't either?

You really don't know anything about Democratic politics.  Democrats spend a ton of time and resources serving black constituencies because, newsflash: black people make up a huge portion of the party.

[No Excuses]

Just now, Burgold said:

Well, I have seen many jobs programs, before and after school programs, children's health care initiatives, scholarships, grants, etc. that were D sponsored/initiated for starters.

 

There's a fairly long list of programs that Dems have supported that have been helpful, none of it which were palatable to conservatives because it usually required things like public funding and public subsidies. When these programs have been initiated, they are usually shouted down as "handouts" and "free stuff". RSkins06 probably knows this too, or maybe is just ignorant and wants others to do the homework for him.

In general, a long history of housing discrimination and segregation created pocket communities of African Americans living in entrenched poverty. There is very little the private sector can do to help this issue without strong public financing. A lot of liberal think tanks propose a public/private solution, one where we create mixed income communities where new developments receive some public funding in return for allowing subsidized housing to low income families. This gives the poor access to very basic things like good education, access to healthy food etc. DC is already doing this. All the new fancy apartments in gentrified neighborhoods like NoMA and Shaw have low income dwelling units with subsidized rents. 

But in general, the US public does not like a publicly funded solution to this. This includes both Democrat and Republican voters. Take this for example:

Quote

Even in super-liberal, very Democratic Amherst, Mass. — Obama 12,316, Romney 1,872 in 2012 — residents fought bitterly against a proposal to build 26 units of moderate income housing. Their decade-long, ultimately futile battle involved “court cases, appeals, and $150,000 worth of legal costs, despite pro bono legal assistance,” The Atlantic reported in June 2015.

[Rskins06]

9 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Well, I have seen many jobs programs, before and after school programs, children's health care initiatives, scholarships, grants, etc. that were D sponsored/initiated for starters.

Who said there aren't any Black Republicans?  Who said there aren't any Black Democrats?  What I said was both parties don't give a damn about anyone other than themselves.  Sure, there are exceptions to that, but you really believe Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, etc really care about the American People.  Each would change their platforms if it meant getting re-elected. 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, Rskins06 said:

Who said there aren't any Black Republicans?  Who said there aren't any Black Democrats?  

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or what I wrote? You asked if there were programs that D's pushed or R's pushed that were beneficial to the AA community. Likewise, you asked if there were programs that D's pushed that R's opposed (or vice versa) that were beneficial for the AA community.

You're not only moving goal posts... you may be playing an entirely different sport.

[Rskins06]

Well, that is enough from me.  This conversation has consumed this thread which was originally about CK not standing for the National Anthem and has grown to an argument / conversation about other things.  I am part of that off track discussion and will not continue with it. 

20 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Well, I have seen many jobs programs, before and after school programs, children's health care initiatives, scholarships, grants, etc. that were D sponsored/initiated for starters.

I was responding to someone else (stevemcqueen)and somehow quoted you.  My apologies.

[Predicto]

Just now, Rskins06 said:

Well, that is enough from me.  This conversation has consumed this thread which was originally about CK not standing for the National Anthem and has grown to an argument / conversation about other things.  I am part of that off track discussion and will not continue with it. 

 

I understand.   You are scared you might get cornered into acknowledging basic facts that threaten your thought-bubble.  

Don't worry.   Youtube will always be there for you.   Say Hi to the chemtrails for me.

[tshile]

32 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 " that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it."  - those are Lee At-water's words.   
 

Preface: I'm not trying to get in the middle of the nonsense you're trying to... well, I don't know what you're trying to do with it, but you're trying to do something likely against your better judgement...

So to people on the left, is appealing to 'states rights' code for being a racist?

I'm asking because there are absolutely cases where I believe appealing to 'states rights' makes sense, and I'd like to know if that means my liberal friends are instantly substituting that with 'racist' in their heads...

[Burgold]

I don't think so, Tshile. At least I'm not. In fact, several of the programs I listed I have seen executed to good effect on the state level rather than the federal.

[Predicto]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

Preface: I'm not trying to get in the middle of the nonsense you're trying to... well, I don't know what you're trying to do with it, but you're trying to do something likely against your better judgement...

So to people on the left, is appealing to 'states rights' code for being a racist?

I'm asking because there are absolutely cases where I believe appealing to 'states rights' makes sense, and I'd like to know if that means my liberal friends are instantly substituting that with 'racist' in their heads...

 

Unfortunately, yes - the specific term "states rights" has primarily been a code word for racism since, well, forever.   If you want to argue for a de-evolution of federal power in favor of more state and local authority (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting that), I would use language like "federalism" or "local control."

"States Rights" is a term that carries a lot of historical baggage with it.   99 percent of the "states rights" that were fought for in the Civil War was the right to legally own slaves.   The "state right" that was fought for in the civil rights era was the right to discriminate against and segregate black people.   Today, it is commonly used as a dogwhistle term to appeal to racial sentiment without being overtly racist. 

I guess people could try to reclaim that term now for more innocuous purposes, but why bother?  I would just use different language.  

 

and do you you really think that I am peddling nonsense about the  political realignment of the Democratic and Republican parties in the past half century?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Predicto

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Predicto said:

I guess people could try to reclaim that term now for more innocuous purposes, but why bother?  I would just use different language.  

No... changing the meaning of words is only something a certain segment of our population can do, and I don't think they have any interest in reclaiming the term 'states rights.'

I figured as much when I read that quote in your post.

*sigh*

[Predicto]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

No... changing the meaning of words is only something a certain segment of our population can do, and I don't think they have any interest in reclaiming the term 'states rights.'

I figured as much when I read that quote in your post.

*sigh*

 

oh ffs   

remind me never to give you an honest answer again, you poor oppressed thing 

[The Evil Genius]

It's not like Predicto is making this **** up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

Quote

States' rights as "code word"[edit]

Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation and more recently, gay marriage.^[35][35][36]

During the heyday of the African-American civil rights movement, defenders of segregation^[35][37] used the term "states' rights" as a code word—in what is now referred to as dog-whistle politics—political messaging that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.^[38][39][40] In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacistpresidential candidate Strom Thurmond.^[41][42] Democratic governor George Wallace of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1963, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"^[43] Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.^[43]

In 2010, Texas governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "states' rights", to some, was reminiscent of "an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights."^[44] During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. Texas president of the NAACP Gary Bledsoe stated that he understood that Perry wasn't speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context; but others still felt offended by the term because of its past misuse.^[44]

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Predicto said:

 

oh ffs   

remind me never to give you an honest answer again, you poor oppressed thing 

Ah lighten up, I'm just having some fun with the topic. It was a sincere question and I appreciate the honest response.

You know it's impossible for me to skip past a chance to take a shot at progressives

[Gamebreaker]

2 hours ago, SemperFi Skins said:

 

How is it not? The way it was intended was to allow those that I mentioned to be equal with the "white man." If you think that's the way it's actually being used then I am not sure what to tell you...

 

You do know that Affirmative Action has proven to help white women more than any other demographic, right? 

While people of color, individually and as groups, have been helped by affirmative action in the subsequent years, data and studies suggest women — white women in particular — have benefited disproportionately. According to one study, in 1995, 6 million women, the majority of whom were white, had jobs they wouldn’t have otherwise held but for affirmative action.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/

[Predicto]

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

It's not like Predicto is making this **** up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

 

 

"States Rights" was the term that Ronald Reagan deliberately chose to use when campaigning in Mississippi in 1980, whice giving a speech at the exact site where three black civil rights workers had been lynched during the civil rights era.   He was following the advice of Lee At-water and dogwhistling to get long standing Southern Dixiecrats to jump to the GOP.   He didn't mention "civil rights" at all - only "states rights"

It worked.  

[mcsluggo]

3 hours ago, Rskins06 said:

Opening what book, a history book which has been edited and written by liberal professors or liberal writers to reflect what they want you to believe?  Or, by doing research which may be contrary to what people have been taught.  I am curious as to what kind of book you would like me to read?  Remember, just because someone is a professor or so called "expert" doesn't mean they don't have an agenda.

 

it is fortunate for us all that you have stumbled upon the unbiased fonts of truth on the internet, and are willing to be a shining beacon of light in the darkness  

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

It's not like Predicto is making this **** up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

 

 

5 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

"States Rights" was the term that Ronald Reagan deliberately chose to use...

It worked.  

 

I can honestly say I didn't know any of that and was never intending to use it that way, but this is exactly why I asked once I saw the quote.

*shrug*

[mcsluggo]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

I think the Democrats have a clear, demonstrable history of failing to come close to helping black people (or any minority for that manner) as much as they claim they will, as much as they claim they have, or or as much as their supporters pretend they have (i'm speaking in my time - the last 20-30 years, not stuff that went on in the 60's/70's.)

But the republicans haven't really done much either. If you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that the GOP isn't racist and does not have racist intentions (and I'm not saying you have to, just humor me and let's pretend we are extending said benefit of the doubt for a second) then at the very least what they have done is: nothing except say you have to work harder.

As much as the GOP decries the support democrats receive from the black population (and I think they have a valid argument here, mind you) they haven't exactly done much to try to 'recruit' the 'black vote' themselves.

Or any minority for that manner. I hate the constant accusations of conservatives being closet racists and sexists, but damn if there aren't plenty of people who self identify as conservatives (some are even elected politicians...) running around saying/voting for the dumbest **** that furthers the narrative.

If the republicans would just adjust their platform to recognize that slavery and decades of segregation has put a specific potion of the country is a significantly disadvantaged status, and came up with policies to help address that, and furthermore pitched those policies to their constituents as "it's good for all of us if we significantly decrease poverty, poor education standards, and crime", and they were actually good ideas... they could probably take the black vote away from the democrats.

It's not like the democrats have this long history of successfully bettering the inner city black communities around this country. The same mayors standing on podiums pretending to want to fight police brutality were authoring memos to police commissioners ordering them to step up aggressive policing to crack down on crime numbers (for reelection material, none the less.)

Jon Stewart did a segment once where it ended with such a note - basically warning the democrats that they aren't all that great themselves and if the republicans weren't run by clowns, the democrats would be in trouble.

 

nice take.   

1)  i don't think that very many people think that every conservative is a racist, but LOTS of people do observe that if you happen to run into a racist the chances are extremely high that said person is going to strongly self-identify as a conservative.  

2)  you don't think that things have gotten any better for the african american community, even in the last 20 or 30 years?  

 

[mcsluggo]

*note* unless it is to concede that every-single-person in the world has biases towards people that they can relate to and think of as "one of my group", and race and nationality are two overly damned easy places to draw these kinds of lines of distinction.    And if you add to this fact that areas with less "mixing" of communities/cultures tend to be more conservative... it is not a stretch to say that more conservative areas appear to have less fluid and comfortable race relations (i leave it to the readers to choose whether less cultural mixing leads to conservatism, or whether conservatism leads to less cultural mixing.  it seems to me to be both, and a bit of a self reinforcing circle)

[The 12th Commandment]

The irony in the universities are all about indoctrinating you in liberalism theory is that almost all of the pundits and politicians to make an issue of it have their jobs because they went to a university.  If there's a conspiracy (which I don't really believe there is, other than one of like thought) it's one to keep their audience from doing any critical thinking.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

nice take.   

1)  i don't think that very many people think that every conservative is a racist, but LOTS of people do observe that if you happen to run into a racist the chances are extremely high that said person is going to strongly self-identify as a conservative.  

2)  you don't think that things have gotten any better for the african american community, even in the last 20 or 30 years?  

 

1) I would like to think that, but you only need to participate in political threads a few times, in places that contain liberals, to see otherwise. the constant mention of 'dog whistles' and other comments along the same lines just show otherwise. Yes, when confronted most reasonable people on the left will say "Sure, not all conservatives are racist", but if you just sit back and watch them they sure say lots of things that seem to suggest they think otherwise...

2) I don't know. We're venturing in territory that's dangerous for me due to my lack of personal experience in this area. I'm not going to say things haven't gotten any better, because while I don't exactly know I'm willing to bet they have. I'd be curious how much of it is because of Democrat's policies, and how much of it is because of time and economic growth. The thing that always gets me is that majority of the large cities in this country (if not all?) are run by Democrats from top to bottom, and have been for decades, and these places have large concentrations of minorities (specifically blacks, to the point where most of the time when people refer to the black community it i assumed/implied they mean inner city black communities) that live in very poor areas, with high crime, low education, to the point where it seems like a downward spiral that is damn near impossible for a person to get out of for the simple fact they were unlucky enough to have been born in such an environment. The cities that seem to correct the poor areas, seem to only do so by raising taxes to chase out the poor minorities and bring in upper class people with money (we call this gentrification now.)  It seems like an awfully ****ty track record to me.

 

 

[Going Commando]

53 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Who said there aren't any Black Republicans?  Who said there aren't any Black Democrats?  What I said was both parties don't give a damn about anyone other than themselves.  Sure, there are exceptions to that, but you really believe Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, etc really care about the American People.  Each would change their platforms if it meant getting re-elected. 

 

You seem to be projecting the reality that the GoP doesn't do anything for black communities onto the Democrats.  I'd suspect you're taking your cues on this assertion from Trump's "throw **** at the wall and see what sticks" strategy put forth in his laughable and insulting "outreach" to black voters from the previous two weeks.  It's nonsense.  Black people are a core constituency of the Democratic party and black people make up a substantial portion of the party itself, at all levels, up to and including the presidency.  Serving the interests and needs of black communities makes up a huge part of everyday Democratic politics, as well as the broader policy agendas of the party at all levels.

Republicans have no clue about the needs and interests of black communities, they have no relationships with black leaders, and the party is almost totally devoid of black members at any level outside of the few embarrassing and unqualified loons like Ben Carson that the national leadership and party intelligentsia tries to push into the spotlight to pretend like their party is racially diverse.  The GoP doesn't even make minimal efforts at engagement like sending campaign volunteers to knock on doors in black neighborhoods in local elections, or hosting conferences and events with black community leaders.  Instead the GoP still works to alienate black voters.  Stuff like passing voter ID laws and restricting same day voting with the specific intention of hurting black turnout.  Stuff like having your presidential nominee pretend like he's reaching out to black people (by calling them uneducated and unemployed... in front of all white audiences) while at the same time ****ting on Muslims and having no clue that a quarter of the Muslims in this country are black people.  Stuff like overturning the protections for black voters in the south in the voting rights act because ahyuck garsh, racism is dead and it's not necessary any more.  Stuff like weakening schools in black communities by siphoning funding from public schools for school vouchers that are used by white families with kids already in private schools, and increase the segregation of communities.  Stuff like having the presidential candidate dog-whistle about law & order in response to protests of police shootings of black men by black people.  Black people know what that code means too.

But a thief thinks everyone else steals, so I suppose it makes sense that Republicans think Democrats don't care about black people.

[DogofWar1]

3 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

2)  you don't think that things have gotten any better for the african american community, even in the last 20 or 30 years?  

Certain things had gotten better, but unfortunately the Great Recession wiped out almost an entire generation of wealth among African Americans, and that wealth has recovered little.

Now, how much government should involve itself in trying to rebuild that wealth in a government facilitated manner is up for debate, as the loss of wealth sits primarily in the private economic realm as opposed to the political one.  Government could certainly go after some of the surrounding issues (housing, education), but direct action is a little harder to hit on.

Of course, there's the counter-balance that since around that time the counter-offensive to the War on Drugs and its surrounding criminal justice issues has been slowly achieving victories (marijuana legalization in some states, recently the plan to drop private prisons at the federal level).

In short, I think it's a bit of a zig-zag.  I do think one political party has made attempts to bring positive changes intentionally more than the other though.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 and race and nationality are two overly damned easy places to draw these kinds of lines of distinction.  

as are class, or even the category of your profession, or pretty much anything else.

and there's nothing inherently wrong with appealing to people who are 'like' you in whatever way, it seems like that's human nature, and where we feel comfortable. there's a difference between that and say, crossing the street because someone who's not 'like' you is coming down the sidewalk in your direction... or deciding people shouldn't be allowed in the country because they practice a religion different than yours... or any number of things. likewise there's a difference between feeling comfortable with things/people 'like' you, and completely refusing to accept/acknowledge/try/interact with people who are somehow not 'like' you.

 

 

4 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

The irony in the universities are all about indoctrinating you in liberalism theory is that almost all of the pundits and politicians to make an issue of it have their jobs because they went to a university.  If there's a conspiracy (which I don't really believe there is, other than one of like thought) it's one to keep their audience from doing any critical thinking.

that's a pretty big issue in general... across the board.

[Destino]

14 minutes ago, KAOSkins said:

The irony in the universities are all about indoctrinating you in liberalism theory is that almost all of the pundits and politicians to make an issue of it have their jobs because they went to a university.  If there's a conspiracy (which I don't really believe there is, other than one of like thought) it's one to keep their audience from doing any critical thinking.

 

Does anyone really doubt that colleges slant heavily to the left?  You call it a theory and a conspiracy, which I find interesting because I've never met anyone that would actually argue the point.  Most just write it off as a starry eyed young period in peoples lives.  What's changed recently is that students are demanding more control in college and getting it.  So what was a liberal atmosphere for a long time has been getting more extreme.  Examples aren't exactly hard to come by.