As a Proud American, I'm Very Happy to See the Confederate Flag Flying at the South Carolina State Capitol Today..

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Someone should let S. Carolina know that they lost the Civil War.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so, in this very thread, the same right wing knuckle-draggers who last week were defending the racist symbol are now saying "meh, it's just a flag.. don't we have other things to worry about"..?

#Progress

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
Yes we do.  We need to convince the Dems to rename their Jackson-Jefferson Day dinners since both were slave holders and Jackson murdered many, many tribes by his forced removals.

Next we need to bulldoze the Jefferson Memorial.   He is a symbol of slave holders everywhere and of course he had kids with his slave Sally Hemings.  Being a slave she had no choice in the matter which in essence makes Jefferson the Founder of the modern Democrat party a serial rapist.

While the bulldozers are in DC they could move directly from the Jefferson Memorial to the Washington Monument.  George Washington may be the Father of our Country but he too was a slave holder, why are we honoring him with a monument?

There's much more work to do to cleanse this country, we need to get at it!!

cool.. I appreciate your passion.

[On March 4th, 1913] Democrat Thomas Woodrow Wilson became the first Southerner elected president since Zachary Taylor in 1848. Washington was flooded with revelers from the Old Confederacy, whose people had long dreamed of a return to the glory days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, when southern gentlemen ran the country. Rebel yells and the strains of “Dixie” reverberated throughout the city. The new administration brought to power a generation of political leaders from the old South who would play influential roles in Washington for generations to come.

Wilson is widely and correctly remembered — and represented in our history books — as a progressive Democrat who introduced many liberal reforms at home and fought for the extension of democratic liberties and human rights abroad. But on the issue of race his legacy was, in fact, regressive and has been largely forgotten.

Born in Virginia and raised in Georgia and South Carolina, Wilson was a loyal son of the old South who regretted the outcome of the Civil War. He used his high office to reverse some of its consequences. When he entered the White House a hundred years ago today, Washington was a rigidly segregated town — except for federal government agencies. They had been integrated during the post-war Reconstruction period, enabling African-Americans to obtain federal jobs and work side by side with whites in government agencies. Wilson promptly authorized members of his cabinet to reverse this long-standing policy of racial integration in the federal civil service.

Cabinet heads — such as his son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo of Tennessee – re-segregated facilities such as restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. In some federal offices, screens were set up to separate white and black workers. African-Americans found it difficult to secure high-level civil service positions, which some had held under previous Republican administrations.

A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

at least you've lost the rage you seemed to have last week. It's not healthy.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:cool..

glad to see that you've lost the rage you seemed to have last week. It's not healthy. It's much more beneficial to channel it into these sorts of efforts.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:cool..

glad to see that you've lost the rage you seemed to have last week. It's not healthy. It's much more beneficial to channel it into these sorts of efforts.

I'm now working to channel my rage at the stupidity of the American public to doing good deeds.

The general public seems to have accepted the "Big Lie" hook, line and sinker that the Republicans are the party of racists.   Even a cursory glance at history shows the opposite to be true. 

The Republican party was formed to abolish slavery.
They led the fight to preserve the Union after the Democrats split it over slavery.
They supported black rights in the South after the Civil War.
Democrats rolled back those rights and instituted Jim Crow and segregation in the south.
Most of the leaders of the KKK were Democrats and/or Democrat politicians.
A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.  That act and many previous attempts to pass a Civil Rights act faced
every procedural delay possible from Democrat politicians.

It goes on and on, yet somehow in the popular mind against all evidence the Republicans are the racists....amazing.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm now working to channel my rage at the stupidity of the American public to doing good deeds.

The general public seems to have accepted the "Big Lie" hook, line and sinker that the Republicans are the party of racists.   Even a cursory glance at history shows the opposite to be true. 

The Republican party was formed to abolish slavery.
They led the fight to preserve the Union after the Democrats split it over slavery.
They supported black rights in the South after the Civil War.
Democrats rolled back those rights and instituted Jim Crow and segregation in the south.
Most of the leaders of the KKK were Democrats and/or Democrat politicians.
A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.  That act and many previous attempts to pass a Civil Rights act faced
every procedural delay possible from Democrat politicians.

It goes on and on, yet somehow in the popular mind against all evidence the Republicans are the racists....amazing.

Anybody that tries to compare democrats and republicans of today to democrats and republicans of pre 1960ish and thinks that it is in anyway valid to think that they are even remotely the same thing is a goddamn idiot.

The thing is, I don't think you're a goddamn idiot. So you're just intentionally trying to be deceptive. Which is better. I guess.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm now working to channel my rage at the stupidity of the American public to doing good deeds.

The general public seems to have accepted the "Big Lie" hook, line and sinker that the Republicans are the party of racists.   Even a cursory glance at history shows the opposite to be true. 

The Republican party was formed to abolish slavery.
They led the fight to preserve the Union after the Democrats split it over slavery.
They supported black rights in the South after the Civil War.
Democrats rolled back those rights and instituted Jim Crow and segregation in the south.
Most of the leaders of the KKK were Democrats and/or Democrat politicians.
A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats.  That act and many previous attempts to pass a Civil Rights act faced
every procedural delay possible from Democrat politicians.

It goes on and on, yet somehow in the popular mind against all evidence the Republicans are the racists....amazing.

Anybody that tries to compare democrats and republicans of today to democrats and republicans of pre 1960ish and thinks that it is in anyway valid to think that they are even remotely the same thing is a goddamn idiot.

The thing is, I don't think you're a goddamn idiot. So you're just intentionally trying to be deceptive. Which is better. I guess.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Anybody that tries to compare democrats and republicans of today to democrats and republicans of pre 1960ish and thinks that it is in anyway valid to think that they are even remotely the same thing is a goddamn idiot.

The thing is, I don't think you're a goddamn idiot. So you're just intentionally trying to be deceptive. Which is better. I guess.

Yeah...not sure where he was going with that one.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Anybody that tries to compare democrats and republicans of today to democrats and republicans of pre 1960ish and thinks that it is in anyway valid to think that they are even remotely the same thing is a goddamn idiot.

The thing is, I don't think you're a goddamn idiot. So you're just intentionally trying to be deceptive. Which is better. I guess.

I agree, the Republicans have elected a Black Senator from Massachusetts and from South Carolina while Dems talk a good game but have elected Black Senators from Illinois and New Jersey.  Kind of amazing for the party that supposedly elevates blacks.  

If you want to discuss the US House the Dems have only elected Blacks from minority majority districts and not even all of those - Cohen in TN comes to mind.   At the same time Republicans have elected multiple black US Representatives from Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, etc, etc from very large white majority districts.  Maybe someday the Dems can do the same.


As usual the Dems talk a good game but the results are poor.

xsanguine wrote:Jesus Christ... Who gives a shit?

We really have nothing better to do than bitch about symbols do we? We really are living in a utopia when this is all we have left to complain about. This is success.... Now it's time to burn it to the ground.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Jesus Christ... Who gives a shit?

We really have nothing better to do than bitch about symbols do we? We really are living in a utopia when this is all we have left to complain about. This is success.... Now it's time to burn it to the ground.

I'm offended that you're not offended

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I was defending symbols, Bob?

I don't know about you.. LooseGoose was definitely unhappy with the bipartisan push to remove the symbol of racism and hate. Looks like he's evolved a little.. because now he seems to be firmly in the corner of "it's just a flag.. nothing that really matters"..

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I don't know about you.. LooseGoose was definitely unhappy with the bipartisan push to remove the symbol of racism and hate. Looks like he's evolved a little.. because now he seems to be firmly in the corner of "it's just a flag.. nothing that really matters"..

I gotcha. I suppose if I was walking around Charleston on vacation and saw it I'd find it kind of weird.... Same as when I was in mason a few weeks ago and saw some good ol boy flying dual confederate flags on his pickup truck and felt a strange reaction.... It's just hard for me to muster much anger from where I'm at. Then again if my neighbor decided to put a confederate flag outside his house I wouldn't run demand he remove it or go to the news to try and call him out... I'd just probably ignore him and let him be. I get that it's a slightly different scenario but I guess I just don't care if someone has a different opinion than me, even an "offensive" one.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Yeah...not sure where he was going with that one.

I'm going toward truth and not the perceptions that have been driven into you by the mass media.   Reality and truth trump that bullshit.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
I don't know about you.. LooseGoose was definitely unhappy with the bipartisan push to remove the symbol of racism and hate. Looks like he's evolved a little.. because now he seems to be firmly in the corner of "it's just a flag.. nothing that really matters"..

I gotcha. I suppose if I was walking around Charleston on vacation and saw it I'd find it kind of weird.... Same as when I was in mason a few weeks ago and saw some good ol boy flying dual confederate flags on his pickup truck and felt a strange reaction.... It's just hard for me to muster much anger from where I'm at. Then again if my neighbor decided to put a confederate flag outside his house I wouldn't run demand he remove it or go to the news to try and call him out... I'd just probably ignore him and let him be. I get that it's a slightly different scenario but I guess I just don't care if someone has a different opinion than me, even an "offensive" one.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:I'm with ya bruh.. I don't really feel anger towards these hateful people, but more confusion and maybe even sadness.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:
I'm going toward truth and not the perceptions that have been driven into you by the mass media.   Reality and truth trump that bullshit.

Keep fighting the good fight dude. I know Ann Coulter isn't doing your party any favors.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/27/ann_coulter_mexican_culture_is_obviously_deficient_and_hispanics_are_not_black_so_drop_the_racism_crap/

It’s also the case that — well, yes, so it would, empirically more likely affect African Americans. Also, understanding within political science, that people who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs.That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans, and, therefore, that’s another vehicle through which African Americans would be disproportionately affected by this law.

As I said before, this is particularly a mechanism and a time that’s well situated for less sophisticated voters, and, therefore, it’s less likely to imagine that these voters would — can figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

What's more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: "Before the Supreme Court's [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants." With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that "people—even historians—are surprised to hear this." Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.

LooseGoose wrote:The Myth of the Racist Republicans

A myth about conservatism is circulating in academia and journalism and has spread to the 2004 presidential campaign. It goes something like this: the Republican Party assembled a national majority by winning over Southern white voters; Southern white voters are racist; therefore, the GOP is racist. Sometimes the conclusion is softened, and Republicans are convicted merely of base opportunism: the GOP is the party that became willing to pander to racists. Either way, today's Republican Party—and by extension the conservative movement at its heart—supposedly has revealed something terrible about itself.

This myth is not the only viewpoint in scholarly debates on the subject. But it is testimony to its growing influence that it is taken aboard by writers like Dan Carter, a prize-winning biographer of George Wallace, and to a lesser extent by the respected students of the South, Earl and Merle Black. It is so pervasive in mass media reporting on racial issues that an NBC news anchor can casually speak of "a new era for the Republican Party, one in which racial intolerance really won't be tolerated." It has become a staple of Democratic politicians like Howard Dean, who accuses Republicans of "dividing Americans against each other, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people" through the use of so-called racist "codewords." All this matters because people use such putative connections to form judgments, and "racist" is as toxic a reputation as one can have in U.S. politics. Certainly the 2000 Bush campaign went to a lot of trouble to combat the GOP's reputation as racially exclusionary. I even know young Republicans who fear that behind their party's victories lies a dirty, not-so-little Southern secret.

The new myth is much bolder than this. It insists that these events should decisively shape our understanding of conservatism and the modern Republican Party. Dan Carter writes that today's conservatism must be traced directly back to the "politics of rage" that George Wallace blended from "racial fear, anticommunism, cultural nostalgia, and traditional right-wing economics." Another scholar, Joseph Aistrup, claims that Reagan's 1980 Southern coalition was "the reincarnation of the Wallace movement of 1968." For the Black brothers, the GOP had once been the "party of Abraham Lincoln," but it became the "party of Barry Goldwater," opposed to civil rights and black interests. It is only a short step to the Democrats' insinuation that the GOP is the latest exploiter of the tragic, race-based thread of U.S. history. In short, the GOP did not merely seek votes expediently; it made a pact with America's devil.

What's more, the trend away from confident beliefs in white supremacy may have begun earlier than we often think. David Chappell, a historian of religion, argues that during the height of the civil rights struggle, segregationists were denied the crucial prop of religious legitimacy. Large numbers of pastors of diverse denominations concluded that there was no Biblical foundation for either segregation or white superiority. Although many pastors remained segregationist anyway, the official shift was startling: "Before the Supreme Court's [Brown v. Board] decision of 1954, the southern Presbyterians. . . and, shortly after the decision, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting desegregation and calling on all to comply with it peacefully. . . . By 1958 all SBC seminaries accepted black applicants." With considerable understatement, Chappell notes that "people—even historians—are surprised to hear this." Billy Graham, the most prominent Southern preacher, was openly integrationist.

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers'.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:LooseGoose - this might be even more horrifying to you:

Blacks Outvoted Whites in 2012 - First Time On Record

Abortion, by the numbers, is a racist institution. That's not to say that all or even most of those who support abortion are racists. Nor does it imply that there are not racists among those who oppose abortion. This statement has nothing to do with agendas or intent. It has everything to do with the simple, undeniable reality that in the United States, abortion kills minority children at more than three times the rate of non-Hispanic, white children. The Reverend Clenard H. Childress calls this phenomenon "black genocide," and has built a national ministry around its exposure. Alveda C. King, daughter of slain civil-rights leader A.D. King and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., quotes her uncle often when outlining her opposition of abortion. She writes:

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.¹

Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population² but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009.³ The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total.⁴ Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women⁵ accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008,⁶ though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population.⁷ The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%.⁸ Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's population,⁹ but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions¹⁰ (37.7% according to the CDC¹¹).
Every day in America, an average of 3,315 human beings lose their lives to abortion.¹² Based on the percentages above, between 683-829 of those babies are Hispanic, between 1,193-1,174 are white, and between 995-1,207 are black. Not only are black children being killed at a far greater percentage than white children, it's possible they're being killed in greater numbers, period. Is that not shocking?! Though the white population in the U.S. outnumbers the black population five to one, abortion may well be killing more black children each day than white children.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:The Myth of the Racist Republicans

It's tough to dispel that myth when your mouthpieces keep saying racist things.

http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

LooseGoose wrote:Benjy Sarlin ‏@BenjySarlin 3m3 minutes ago
Benjy Sarlin retweeted Kotaku
This is getting ridiculous
Benjy Sarlin added,

Kotaku @Kotaku
Apple is yanking Civil War games from the App Store... because they use the Confederate flag: http://bit.ly/1SNoA1F

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I gotcha. I suppose if I was walking around Charleston on vacation and saw it I'd find it kind of weird.... Same as when I was in mason a few weeks ago and saw some good ol boy flying dual confederate flags on his pickup truck and felt a strange reaction.... It's just hard for me to muster much anger from where I'm at. Then again if my neighbor decided to put a confederate flag outside his house I wouldn't run demand he remove it or go to the news to try and call him out... I'd just probably ignore him and let him be. I get that it's a slightly different scenario but I guess I just don't care if someone has a different opinion than me, even an "offensive" one.

I'm with ya bruh.. I don't really feel anger towards these hateful people, but more confusion and maybe even sadness.

With that said, I don't think anyone can argue for the government flying that shit. Individuals within the country? Sure, go ahead, look like a moran. But the government probably shouldn't be. Not saying I'm running to facebook and getting in arguments about it, running to my local news and causing a ruckus, etc etc. Just my opinion, man.