It's that blasted flag's fault

[poncho]

Oh now that's just totally offensive!

No, not the stars and bars, it's those words Clinton and Gore. They should be banned from public discourse!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

http://russp.us/racism.htm

Yup. But you're a racist.

 

[poncho]

Yup. But you're a racist.

Just trying to fit in.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Seriously, since facts mean so little and highly charged ill informed emotion rule around here.....

 

[Jedi Knight]

Seriously, since facts mean so little and highly charged ill informed emotion rule around here.....

Not by you though...right?

 

[poncho]

Seriously, since facts mean so little and highly charged ill informed emotion rule around here.....

Ah well I still got my guitar.

Actually I have six guitars now. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I seriously downsized. Down to three. My Telecaster and two Martin dreadnaughts. Quality not quantity.

 

[Revmitchell]

I seriously downsized. Down to three. My Telecaster and two Martin dreadnaughts. Quality not quantity.

I have an old "Montana". It does not have the high end quality but it has a great sound and I love it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It's about you and the instrument. Mine go on he road with me so I tend to go for high end stuff.

 

[poncho]

I seriously downsized. Down to three. My Telecaster and two Martin dreadnaughts. Quality not quantity.

Okay I only have five guitars, one is a bass.

 

[Eric B]

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

http://russp.us/racism.htm

So people are finally addressing more the Southern Strategy (beyond just a fleeting pinning it on Thurmond alone), admitting some peopl eswitched parties, but totally leave out bits and parts of information (including the term “Southern Strategy” and those that deliberately conceived of it).

He admitted “many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party”, and that “some” were “probably attracted to” the Republican Party, but doesn’t tell us what happened to the rest of the “many”. With all the hatred many of the opposers of civil rights had back then (both officials and the voting base), most were not going to go along with the party figuring/counting on "oh, we'll just enslave them another way". They didn't want them merely "dependent", they wanted them either subjugated the old fashioned way, or disposed of altogether! They already thought their nation was being "taken from them" and given to these people, so why would they favor a tactic of more of that approach? So in the heat of the moment, when they fear their own livelihood is at stake with too much integration, they are not going to be thinking that way.
(It should also be pointed that using 1964 to disprove the existence of Southern Strategy is not accurate, for that was when it was just starting).

Also, with the "traditional Christian religious values" aspect; yes, that was apart of it too. In fact, all of those issues usually were tied together (both racial and religious) as “the values of our nation” (couched in the whole "us vs them" mindset we keep seeing), unfortunately.

This gets hung up in "the parties", and which one is more racist or not. But the parties are irrelevent; it's the ideologies, which are carried by the people, whichever party or strategy they may choose. (And you are usually the one correctly pointing out it is ultimately not about the parties).

So with the always good party and always bad party division established, the article then proceeds to go after the "problem people" themselves with their [overhyped] "government dependency" and horrible cities, which is what it always comes back to. (Again, two monolithic groups responsible for all problems in the nation; one the source of all evil; and the other, their weak minded, lazy, greedy dupes).
(Again, you and most other libertarians, unlike the others, usually recognize the other factors in these problems, such as corporatism, but in arguments like this article, it's totally ignored. The race issue was ultimately economic ever since its beginning, so that's why it's always accompanied by rabid defense of corporate interests.
So while the government may not have solved all of blacks problems, corporatism or politicians who defend it has not solved all of everyone else's problems either, though they just as much as the other side, keep "buying votes" by telling their base that the problem is all the [poor] "takers", and if they vote for them, they'll put an end to it. But no one is any happier with the outcome when they win than they are with the liberal government. So all of this stuff about "problem urban people" is just more deflection).

Rather than "blacks having so many more problems than everyone else", and "the Democratic north" being the sole cause of it, all communities have problems (all have sinned), but what I've noticed is blacks are more v̲i̲s̲i̲b̲l̲e̲, from being in the big urban areas [mostly up north and California] that pop culture and politics alike [both of which, hyping up this image of the "black thug"] are centered on.
A whole race is being judged by a subset of angry, mostly younger people, and the poor. All the others who work hard trying to live and get along, and even do well for themselves simply become invisible in this rhetoric.

It's the size of the cities, not the party (the more people you have, the more sin there will be, and aren't there poor ghettoes with crime in southern cities? They're just not as big as Chicago, Detroit and the others).

 

[SovereignGrace]

In unrelated news:

===Gov't going after automakers because of all the lives taken by drunk drivers. By 2017, people will be forced to use horse and buggy. Look for grain prices to skyrocket accordingly.

===Gov't going after snack producers due to obesity of kids and heart attacks in adults. People will be forced to eat only fruit and veggies, with all fast food restaurants being closed down by 2018. Crops skyrocket as a result.

===If you shoot your own meat, you'll face 'cruelty to animal' charges. The gov't states that if you can't eat wildlife without killing them, then you have no right to eat them. Millions of peoples will be killed by all the deer standing on the highways.

 

[Use of Time]

So people are finally addressing more the Southern Strategy (beyond just a fleeting pinning it on Thurmond alone), admitting some peopl eswitched parties, but totally leave out bits and parts of information (including the term “Southern Strategy” and those that deliberately conceived of it).

He admitted “many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party”, and that “some” were “probably attracted to” the Republican Party, but doesn’t tell us what happened to the rest of the “many”. With all the hatred many of the opposers of civil rights had back then (both officials and the voting base), most were not going to go along with the party figuring/counting on "oh, we'll just enslave them another way". They didn't want them merely "dependent", they wanted them either subjugated the old fashioned way, or disposed of altogether! They already thought their nation was being "taken from them" and given to these people, so why would they favor a tactic of more of that approach? So in the heat of the moment, when they fear their own livelihood is at stake with too much integration, they are not going to be thinking that way.
(It should also be pointed that using 1964 to disprove the existence of Southern Strategy is not accurate, for that was when it was just starting).

Also, with the "traditional Christian religious values" aspect; yes, that was apart of it too. In fact, all of those issues usually were tied together (both racial and religious) as “the values of our nation” (couched in the whole "us vs them" mindset we keep seeing), unfortunately.

This gets hung up in "the parties", and which one is more racist or not. But the parties are irrelevent; it's the ideologies, which are carried by the people, whichever party or strategy they may choose. (And you are usually the one correctly pointing out it is ultimately not about the parties).

So with the always good party and always bad party division established, the article then proceeds to go after the "problem people" themselves with their [overhyped] "government dependency" and horrible cities, which is what it always comes back to. (Again, two monolithic groups responsible for all problems in the nation; one the source of all evil; and the other, their weak minded, lazy, greedy dupes).
(Again, you and most other libertarians, unlike the others, usually recognize the other factors in these problems, such as corporatism, but in arguments like this article, it's totally ignored. The race issue was ultimately economic ever since its beginning, so that's why it's always accompanied by rabid defense of corporate interests.
So while the government may not have solved all of blacks problems, corporatism or politicians who defend it has not solved all of everyone else's problems either, though they just as much as the other side, keep "buying votes" by telling their base that the problem is all the [poor] "takers", and if they vote for them, they'll put an end to it. But no one is any happier with the outcome when they win than they are with the liberal government. So all of this stuff about "problem urban people" is just more deflection).

Rather than "blacks having so many more problems than everyone else", and "the Democratic north" being the sole cause of it, all communities have problems (all have sinned), but what I've noticed is blacks are more v̲i̲s̲i̲b̲l̲e̲, from being in the big urban areas [mostly up north and California] that pop culture and politics alike [both of which, hyping up this image of the "black thug"] are centered on.
A whole race is being judged by a subset of angry, mostly younger people, and the poor. All the others who work hard trying to live and get along, and even do well for themselves simply become invisible in this rhetoric.

It's the size of the cities, not the party (the more people you have, the more sin there will be, and aren't there poor ghettoes with crime in southern cities? They're just not as big as Chicago, Detroit and the others).

Hey thanks for this. Very detailed and nuanced breakdown. I've enjoyed your posting style since you have arrived.

 

[Revmitchell]

The reason that race is being judged as it is is due to the fact that by and large they are blaming their issues on another race and another financial class of people. Let's not ignore that part of the equation.

 

[Use of Time]

The reason that race is being judged as it is is due to the fact that by and large they are blaming their issues on another race and another financial class of people. Let's not ignore that part of the equation.

You don't suppose that maybe we tend to look at the worst examples of their culture and summarily judge the worth of their race based off of that? Take a look around this board. You aren't going to see a lot of positive things said about black people.

 

[Revmitchell]

You don't suppose that maybe we tend to look at the worst examples of their culture and summarily judge the worth of their race based off of that? Take a look around this board. You aren't going to see a lot of positive things said about black people.

What context are they brought up? Every context I have seen them brought up in is that their social ills are the white man's fault. So no you are not going to see positive responses to that. Why would you expect otherwise?

 

[Use of Time]

What context are they brought up? Every context I have seen them brought up in is that their social ills are the white man's fault. So no you are not going to see positive responses to that. Why would you expect otherwise?

Maybe by Zaac but you and I both know that there are more than a few people on this board that have no problem generalizing the entire race in only negative ways without being prompted by Zaac or anyone else. I know you have seen this Rev.

 

[carpro]

If South Carolina is going to remove the battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia, it should be sent to the Democratic National Committee.

Where it truly belongs. To be placed on display in their headquarters as a reminder of their racist history.

 

[poncho]

Right beside Bill and Hillary's "stars and bars" campaign buttons.

 

[carpro]

So people are finally addressing more the Southern Strategy (beyond just a fleeting pinning it on Thurmond alone), admitting some peopl eswitched parties, but totally leave out bits and parts of information (including the term “Southern Strategy” and those that deliberately conceived of it).

The most successful and expensive ($22 Trillion and counting) southern strategy was Johnson's "great society".

"I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."

Lyndon Johnson