ADVERTISEMENT

Liberals, show your outrage regarding racism

Medic007

MegaPoke is insane
Sep 25, 2006
32,634
51,019
113


Show your outrage about this blatant racism. Post it in all caps. Malik Shabazz is a racist and should be condemned for his blatant extremist racism. The Black Panthers should be labeled as a racist hate group.

Come on boys, show us your disgust and intolerance to any form of racism.
 
haha...good luck! In fact if someone took that scumbag to heart and killed a "slave master" he wouldn't be touched by the racist DOJ. Incredible double standard, not even the POS idiot occupant of the WH will come out and condemn this which tells you in a nut shell that he would never say this clown "acted stupidly."
 
Dude, you find anyone here defending them?

Bobby Seale, the co-founder of the original "Black Panther Party" (of which this group appropriated their name and look, despite having no connection whatsoever with the original group) describes them as a "Black Racist Hate Group."

I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Do you think you have accomplished something material or produced something of significance that raised the level of discourse? Do you honestly think that most "liberals" some how view groups like this in a good light? (Because if you just opened your eyes, opened a web browser and searched the topic yourself you would find no shortage of "liberals" and "liberal groups" condemning these racist idiots in no uncertain terms.)

The NAACP denounced this group officially back in 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified them as a 'Hate Group" prone to violence, etc. How does this become an issue for you today? Was there something that happened that made you believe that "liberals" are embracing or joining this group?

To be honest, it's about as insulting as me posting here demanding to know why all the conservatives who post here regularly haven't shown up lately to denounce the klan or the skinheads. I don't do so, because I'm assuming that no one here is a supporter of the klan or endorses the skinheads, just as I assume that there is no love lost for the NBPP. Why wouldn't you extend the same courtesy to other posters?
 
Dude, you find anyone here defending them?

Bobby Seale, the co-founder of the original "Black Panther Party" (of which this group appropriated their name and look, despite having no connection whatsoever with the original group) describes them as a "Black Racist Hate Group."

I really don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Do you think you have accomplished something material or produced something of significance that raised the level of discourse? Do you honestly think that most "liberals" some how view groups like this in a good light? (Because if you just opened your eyes, opened a web browser and searched the topic yourself you would find no shortage of "liberals" and "liberal groups" condemning these racist idiots in no uncertain terms.)

The NAACP denounced this group officially back in 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified them as a 'Hate Group" prone to violence, etc. How does this become an issue for you today? Was there something that happened that made you believe that "liberals" are embracing or joining this group?

To be honest, it's about as insulting as me posting here demanding to know why all the conservatives who post here regularly haven't shown up lately to denounce the klan or the skinheads. I don't do so, because I'm assuming that no one here is a supporter of the klan or endorses the skinheads, just as I assume that there is no love lost for the NBPP. Why wouldn't you extend the same courtesy to other posters?




Come on Hollywood you know why the question was posed the way it was. Conservatives on this board are nothing but redneck racists. That is what the board "progressives" call them on a daily basis. It's their mo. Without that they got nothing. That is what they do. The conservatives who post here regularly haven't shown up to denounce the klan or skinheads is because according to the libs they are the klan and skinheads. It gets old coming on here and seeing the same old thing day in and day out. The left on here really needs to come up with some new material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
Morris Dees and the SPLC is one of the most racist organizations in the US. Nowhere in their listing of racist organizations is the Congressional Black Caucus, the DOJ under Holder and Lynch, Al Sharpton or the President and First Lady of the US. Our country will never progress to racial harmony until some of the sacred cows on the left are exposed for keeping the racism pot stirred.

Lest we not forget, because it's not being taught in our schools, the most racist things in our history were perpetrated by and under democrats. It's laughable to hear these past two weeks how the racist ills of the country can be washed away if all the conservatives and republicans just go away. We continue to hear that it's because the south has become solid red states and that keeps the racism alive. What we don't hear is that the south was dominated by democrats from before the Civil War until about 30 years ago. Virtually all the elected governors, senators and congressmen in the south during our most despicable racist years were democrats. Nineteen of the 20 southern Senators who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were democrats including at least one, Robert Byrd, who was a member of the KKK. Yet, all our racial problems throughout history come from conservatives (which I am) and republicans (which I'm not). Bullshit.

Until our country has a no holds barred discussion about racism and the historical causes of it we will never progress past this racial animosity. However, as long as we have organizations like the SPLC or organizations which continue to divide based on skin color we are doomed to continue this disharmony.

The brouhaha over the Confederate flag being the proximate cause of racism is laughable when the presumed leaders of the democratic party not so long ago apparently embraced the following although they are running away from these as fast as her cankles and his raspy voice can carry them.

Screen-Shot-2015-06-21-at-2.02.53-PM.png


hillary-flag-2-620x639.png


And for the record, I've never owned a Confederate flag and my family came to this country legally as immigrants long after the Civil War or as Native Americans who were already here, yet, solely due to our skin color and political beliefs we are deemed racists.
 
Imprimis - "What we don't hear is that the south was dominated by democrats from before the Civil War until about 30 years ago. Virtually all the elected governors, senators and congressmen in the south during our most despicable racist years were democrats. Nineteen of the 20 southern Senators who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were democrats including at least one, Robert Byrd, who was a member of the KKK."

No doubt, the Southern Democrats were a bunch of racists, just as their Southern Republican counterparts were. Not a SINGLE REPUBLICAN from a former confederate state voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964!

But what you seem to completely ignore (and everyone else who keeps making this argument) is that it was a DEMOCRATIC President who had the DOJ draft the CRA. And it was his DEMOCRATIC successor working with the Democratic and Republican leadership in the House and Senate who overcame the opposition from the Southern congress critters to get the bill up for a vote and pass it.

Northern Democrats voted FOR the CRA by a higher percentage than Northern Republicans:

HOUSE
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
SENATE
  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
This wasn't a "Political Party" issue, it was a "Southern Racist" issue. The southern members of both parties, differed significantly from their counterparts from the rest of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
Not as a social liberal, fiscally moderate, libertarian leaner - but as a human - count me outraged.
 
Wood are you kidding me? Your breaking this down by regions now so that it can fit your narrative? What about politicians from the west?
I think what people look for is someone like the idiot POS occupant of the WH to instantly condemn this type of rhetoric like he would if say a white, Hispanic or oriental said it. But of course he doesn't and won't because deep down I suspect he sympathizes with clowns like that.
Love the new thesis you are promulgating now...that 1/2 of one party, from a regional standpoint, is better than 1/2 of the opposite party from a different region. You must be a lawyer.
 
Also if you want to tout LBJ as a D that got this passed, that's fine but by today's standards he would easily be considered a racist and generally a foul human being.
He also was able to rally much support by pushing this as something Kennedy would have wanted and done, which was a great pitch after his assassination.
 
No doubt, the Southern Democrats were a bunch of racists, just as their Southern Republican counterparts were. Not a SINGLE REPUBLICAN from a former confederate state voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964!

All both of them. Literally. Both. Two.
 
Wyoming, there were 10 Southern Republicans in the House, ALL voted against the CRA.

John Tower of Texas was the only Republican from the South in the Senate, and he likewise voted NO.

Windriverrange, I guess you missed it, the vote totals actually include ALL politicians, Reps or Dems from all of the other 39 states. Only the Dems and Reps from the South voted against the CRA in any significant numbers. The votes from those outside the South were overwhelmingly in favor of the CRA. It definitely was a regional thing, more than it was a political party thing, the numbers don't lie and establish that fact pretty clearly.

It may be a bit misleading to say "Northern" when in actuality, the number represents those voting from the 39 non-confederate states.

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)

  • Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)

  • Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
If you don't see the major difference between the voting patterns of those from the South and the rest of the country you're in denial or blind. Clearly, there's a huge difference based solely upon regionalism.
 
Show your outrage about this blatant racism. Post it in all caps. Malik Shabazz is a racist and should be condemned for his blatant extremist racism. The Black Panthers should be labeled as a racist hate group.

Come on boys, show us your disgust and intolerance to any form of racism.



1. See Hollywood's post, supra. It should be tacked at the top of this board.

2. Rip Mr. Shabazz all you want -- there's a few of you that really get whipped up and expend lots of energy beating on the fringe characters. Eh. FWIW, thanks for doing your part and spreading his vitriol. Al Sharpton isn't spreading that -- you are.

3. No thanks re: playing that Rush/Hannity - style sophistry where you try and impute someone else's extremist views on your opponent. Say what you want about my republican friends and the thinking conservatives on here, wackos like McVeigh and Duke aren't on their ideological radar. Why would I pretend to be too simple to understand that?
 
Lest we not forget, because it's not being taught in our schools, the most racist things in our history were perpetrated by and under democrats. It's laughable to hear these past two weeks how the racist ills of the country can be washed away if all the conservatives and republicans just go away. We continue to hear that it's because the south has become solid red states and that keeps the racism alive. What we don't hear is that the south was dominated by democrats from before the Civil War until about 30 years ago. Virtually all the elected governors, senators and congressmen in the south during our most despicable racist years were democrats. Nineteen of the 20 southern Senators who led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were democrats including at least one, Robert Byrd, who was a member of the KKK. Yet, all our racial problems throughout history come from conservatives (which I am) and republicans (which I'm not). Bullshit.

Are you talking about junior high and high school history? I have no idea on that front. I see that the revised APUSH standards speak of region but not political affiliation for 20th century civil rights issues. But the role of the southern Democratic party as a cornerstone of racist politics is front and center for any college survey-level take on Reconstruction through the 1970s. Certainly, the stacks of survey textbooks are clear. Are professors arguing against the textbooks they assign? Certainly none that I know of, and I run with northern uber-lefties who have general biases against conservative southern whites. They (we) love bashing white southern Democrats from Andrew Johnson through John Edwards.

Beyond that, if people care to learn about the political and social dynamics of the 1960s, any worthwhile book by a historian will foreground the protests aimed at the Democratic establishment---from domestic economic policy to civil rights to Vietnam. Books about postwar cities---which predominantly focus on Democratic-led places, despite a recent interest in the Sun Belt---revolve around racially and economically divisive policies developed by Democrats. The two most important urban history books (ask any postwar US urban historian) are about Chicago and Detroit, with Democratic politicians (black and white!) as perfect villains.

And it's not just academic historians. Watch any documentary about the civil rights movement from the last 20 years. I don't think the recent American Experience about the Mississippi Freedom Summer (1964) even mentioned the Republican Party---yet it devoted an entire episode to LBJ's and Walter Reuther's evisceration of the attempt to seat an interracial Mississippi delegation at the 64 DNC. And what was the controversy about "Selma" (written and directed by a black woman who self-identifies as an activist)? The unflattering portrayal of LBJ.

In fact I think the theme became so established that a revision emerged in the last ten years (most prominently with Rick Perlstein), in which historians have said, 'Hey hold on, even the supposedly enlightened 60s northern and western Republicans weren't so innocent.'
 
Anodyne...if you were going to pick up an even handed book about the policies you mentioned above, what would the title be? Thanks in advance.
 
Anodyne...if you were going to pick up an even handed book about the policies you mentioned above, what would the title be? Thanks in advance.

Postwar urban histories that confront liberal and Democratic policies: Arnold Hirsh, Making the Second Ghetto; Tom Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis; Brad Hunt, Blueprint for Disaster; Robert Caro, The Power Broker [urban renewal in NYC].

On the New Left, as falling short of its ideals (and being resisted by the Democratic/liberal establishment): Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage; David Barber, A Hard Rain Fell.

Liberal/Democratic machine opposition to community activism during the War on Poverty: Annalise Orleck (editor), The War on Poverty: A New Grassroots History.

The Democratic Party and the southern civil rights movement: Wesley Hogan, Many Minds, One Heart; Peniel Joseph, Stokely: A Life; Dan Carter, The Politics of Rage [on George Wallace].

Also, any and all of Robert Caro's four-volume masterwork biography of LBJ.

I have dozens more suggestions for each category, if you're interested. These are just some that first come to mind as comprehensive and readable.
 
Awesome Anodyne, good starting points, thanks. Probably will start with Hirsh, as you are the second person I know to mention him and "Making The Second Ghetto." Very much appreciated.
 
Awesome Anodyne, good starting points, thanks. Probably will start with Hirsh, as you are the second person I know to mention him and "Making The Second Ghetto." Very much appreciated.
It's a classic, for certain. It's held up well even if he's a bit reductive for my taste. Sometimes I feel like I can recall what happens on each page. If it really rings your bell, then you'll want to seek out a couple of special issues of the Journal of Urban History. March 2003 is devoted to the 20th anniversary of the book, with some good (but cautious) criticisms and Hirsh's look back. May 2013 contains a series of essays that promote the cultural and intellectual 'turn' in the history of urban renewal (as opposed to Hirsh's unbending economic and racial focus). Your public library should be able to arrange an interlibrary loan.

Sugrue and Hunt are directly related to Hirsh's work. In fact, Making the Second Ghetto was relatively obscure until Sugrue made such a big deal of it in his book fifteen years later. Hunt is much kinder to liberals. Another one I should recommend is A World More Concrete by Nate Connolly. It's about urban renewal in Miami, much of which was embraced by the black community---an opposite take than Hirsh. Connolly is an excellent writer and a good dude. He and Sugrue are bolting from Johns Hopkins and Penn, respectively, to head NYU's new urban history thing. Ballers.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT