Black President Presides over a Nation Racially Divided

[Zaac]

]for the race baiting you are trolling [soliciting] for .... but the fish aren't biting in this pond, son!

Ain't nobody on here your son.

 

[righteousdude2]

Ain't nobody on here your son.

You are right, you aren't my son. Must have been a slip of the finger on the keys.

 

[OldRegular]

You are right, you aren't my son. Must have been a slip of the finger on the keys.

Perhaps "boy" would be more appropriate. But wait, I believe that was what Tarzan called his son.

 

[Zaac]

Perhaps "boy" would be more appropriate. But wait, I believe that was what Tarzan called his son.

Or he could try the novel idea of calling people by their screen name.

 

[carpro]

Moderator, please close this thread.

No one has disputed the premise of the OP that race relations in the US have become worse under Obama.

There is no sense keeping the thread open when there is no disagreement, just to provide a forum for the racial slurs and personal insults that seems to be all some of them can offer.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Moderator, please close this thread.

No one has disputed the premise of the OP that race relations in the US have become worse under Obama.

There is no since keeping the thread open when there is no disagreement, just to provide a forum for the racial slurs and personal insults that seems to be all some of them can offer.

Carpro, when are you going to answer my questions. You called others cowards, but you will not discuss. So ....................

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's a lie.

You just didn't like the answer.

As stupid and inane as the questions are, I shouldn't have even bothered at all.

Don't call others cowards when you will not be honese enough to stand up and discuss. Please answer the questions or stand convicted of being a coward!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabbie, crabbie, crabbie the Republicans have never tried to create a plantation mentality amongst the blacks. Remember it was the Republicans who freed the blacks. Then in 1933 a clever democrat came along, started the nation on the road to a welfare state and the vast majority of blacks have been in involuntary servitude to the leftist democrat party ever since. democrats are doing their best to do the same thing to the Latinos!

Old, you are talking ancient history. Try looking at the latter half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. The GOP took the place of the Democrats after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill and have played plantation politics in their Southern Policy.

Read:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176508/gops-white-southern-republican-problem

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/06/the-gop-southern-strategy-reconsidered/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nixon-bigger-crime-southern-strategy-article-1.1891611

This is a mere beginning of articles.

 

[carpro]

Another off topic post.

Moderator, please close the thread.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Another off topic post.

Moderator, please close the thread.

You accused others of being afraid to discuss racism. Why will you not answer questions ask of you about racism. Are you afraid? Please answer them.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Do you dispute that race relations are worse now than when Obama took office?

Do you believe he bears no responsibility for it?

Or are you just another leftist that likes to play the race card to avoid discussing it at all and uses it to squash discussing Obama's failure as a president?

Are you just a coward when it comes to discussing race?

You're crazy. If anything this President has tried to build a cooperative consensus but raciest Republicans like you will have nothing of it.

 

[OldRegular]

Old, you are talking ancient history. Try looking at the latter half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. The GOP took the place of the Democrats after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill and have played plantation politics in their Southern Policy.

Crabbie you cannot rewrite history. the 1964 Civil Rights Law would have never got passed if it had not been overwhelmingly supported by the Republicans. Read and weep Crabbie!

Passage in the Senate

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[14] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[15]

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[16]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[17]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[18]

On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[19]

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Crabbie, you apparently are unwilling to admit that the democrat party under FDR, never letting a good crisis go to waste, started the nation on the downhill slide to a welfare state. Using typical democrat hypocrisy the initial federal welfare was Aid to Dependent Children. Putting people on welfare when they should be working the democrats were looking for votes . Do you realize that since Johnson's Great Society 17 trillion dollars have been spent on welfare, the same amount as the national debt.

Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), later known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was a provision of the Social Security Act of 1935. Although the impulse to assist poor and orphaned children dates to after the Civil War, no formal federal government program aimed at alleviating poverty existed until President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Social Security Act called on states to develop plans to aid the poor, with the federal government matching up to one-third of these expenditures. The states had discretion to determine income eligibility and benefits levels, but they could not place a time limit on benefits or require recipients to work.

Originally intended to enable poor widows to care for their children, the program by the 1960s came to support mostly unmarried mothers. In fewer than 10 years, from 1961 to 1970, AFDC caseloads nearly tripled. Several Supreme Court cases decided in the late 1960s and early 1970s weakened state restrictions that had blocked some from receiving benefits, resulting in a further expansion in AFDC caseloads. Lower courts built on these precedents to expand the concept that citizens were entitled to receive welfare benefits, placing the burden on government to justify eligibility restrictions.

AFDC became the primary method of providing cash assistance to the poor for more than 60 years, and the term became synonymous with welfare. Critics of AFDC claimed that the absence of work requirements and time limits on benefits established a precedent for relief that fostered a culture of dependency. These concerns prompted several attempts at reform in the 1960s and 1970s, including President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan and President Jimmy Carter’s Program for Better Jobs and Income, but neither proposal passed Congress.

http://what-when-how.com/the-american-economy/aid-to-dependent-children-adc/

 

[OldRegular]

You're crazy. If anything this President has tried to build a cooperative consensus but raciest Republicans like you will have nothing of it.

You are not really serious are you. Obamma has used Harry Reid to stymie the Republican house completely!

 

[ShagNappy]

Perhaps "boy" would be more appropriate. But wait, I believe that was what Tarzan called his son.

Suggesting someone call a black man boy? Then mentioning Tarzan's "son." How much racism is allowed on this forum?

 

[OldRegular]

Suggesting someone call a black man boy? Then mentioning Tarzan's "son." How much racism is allowed on this forum?

As much as you and FTW and Crabbie can spew I suppose!

 

[carpro]

You're crazy. If anything this President has tried to build a cooperative consensus but raciest Republicans like you will have nothing of it.

Your name calling is expected. It's standard leftist practice in any racial topic.

And it doesn't change the fact...and it is and indisputable fact... that race relations in this country are worse now than when Obama took office.

If you disagree, make your case.

 

[carpro]

Fine let's dance. Ask me anything you want about race.

Those that know me know that I am no coward.

Yes, you are.

You are still afraid of the subject, substituting racial name calling and personal attacks for substantive discourse.

 

[righteousdude2]

You're crazy. If anything this President has tried to build a cooperative consensus but raciest Republicans like you will have nothing of it.

This potus is not a kum by ya, let's be one type of leader.

In read of asking can't we all just get along? He fans the flames. And you heard it here. Obama has curiously returned to the WH , and I bet it has to do with sending more boots to Iraq, and, or Ferguson. Maybe both. Of course he could be resigning? No such luck....

 

[OldRegular]

This potus is not a kum by ya, let's be one type of leader.

In read of asking can't we all just get along? He fans the flames. And you heard it here. Obama has curiously returned to the WH , and I bet it has to do with sending more boots to Iraq, and, or Ferguson. Maybe both. Of course he could be resigning? No such luck....

Perhaps he will federalize the National Guard in Missouri, pull them all out of Ferguson, and send them to Iraq. Let Ferguson burn!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Let Ferguson burn!

Why??????????????:smilewinkgrin: