Lady Liberty Is a Black Woman...

The coin is the first in a series of coins that will feature Lady Liberty as Asian American, Hispanic American and Native American, and which will be released every two years.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:gonna be fun watching the deplorables #BoycottLadyLiberty

Robert J Sakimano wrote:gonna be fun watching the deplorables #BoycottLadyLiberty

Robert J Sakimano wrote:gonna be fun watching the deplorables #BoycottLadyLiberty

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:gonna be fun watching the deplorables #BoycottLadyLiberty

Yeah after watching those Democrats fight to the death to keep slavery and then segregation they'll stop at nothing to eliminate this coin.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:gonna be fun watching the deplorables #BoycottLadyLiberty

Yeah after watching those Democrats fight to the death to keep slavery and then segregation they'll stop at nothing to eliminate this coin.

xsanguine wrote:here we go...

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:here we go...

uh oh - Cheeto Hitler about to pee on her??

Antineoplastons wrote:

DWags wrote:Meh, I"m taking Goose for his word here.  He believes the party of Obama is like the democratic party during the civil war, or the racists down south in the 1950's and 60's.  

So the party that disliked like blacks decided to join the party that fought for their rights at the same time the party that fought for the rights of blacks decided they wanted to join the party that disliked them LOL....

I don't know what's sadder, the fact that they even attempt this ridiculous lie or the fact that some people actually buy into it.

http://newsninja2012.com/the-democrats-big-lie-dixiecrats-switched-to-republican-party-with-racist-agenda/

Antineoplastons wrote:

DWags wrote:

The civil war never actually happened.  You show your ignorance by believing that. The whole thing was a hoax.  

Who said anything about the civil war? ( although props to you for knowing the civil war was fake)  You really haven't heard of the Civil Rights Bill that was passed thanks to the Republicans?  Maybe you haven't since it paints Democrats as racists and the history books have done a bang up job of hiding this truth

Rocinante wrote:

Antineoplastons wrote:

Who said anything about the civil war? ( although props to you for knowing the civil war was fake)  You really haven't heard of the Civil Rights Bill that was passed thanks to the Republicans?  Maybe you haven't since it paints Democrats as racists and the history books have done a bang up job of hiding this truth

Yeah and the Southern Strategy never happened.

Rocinante wrote:Right on cue Goose.

The republican party has admitted it and even gone so far as to apologize for it. Can't go back and say it didn't exist now. Even with white supremacists in power.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Strom Thurmond is your "good example" because he's the ONLY example.
 





A larger percentage of Republicans voted for the CRA than Dems, bad example for you.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386257/myth-republican-racism-mona-charen



1980?   Not so, have an open mind and read this article....then come tell me where he's factually incorrect??

The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority How Republicans Really Won The South

I have a pretty open mind. I am not wed to any party or ideology. In fact, I tend to be critical of the concept of the state and find most authority to be illegitimate even if it is supposedly grounded in the consent of the people. When it comes to partisan politics, I find it pointless to pick sides. I am not sure if that makes me objective or just equally critical of America's two parties. Either way, it means I am not leaning one way or the other.

With that said, I have some concerns about the data you provided. This is especially true in respect to the number of Republicans that voted for the 1964 CRA. The percentages you cite - 80% in the House and 82% in the Senate - are accurate. However, they do not account for geography. In a debate that is about geography, the absence of data on how southern Democrats and Republicans voted is odd. In fact, when you account for geography, you find little support came from the south and no support from southern Republicans.

Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers a while back. He defined south as the Confederate states (Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas). According to his numbers, only 8% of southern representatives and 5% of southern senators voted for the CRA. They were all Democrats. None of the 11 House Republicans from the south voted for the CRA, and neither did the lone southern Republican in the Senate. Meanwhile, eight of 91 southern Democrats in the House voted yes and one of 21 southern Democrats in the Senate did the same.

Over time, the Democratic Party embraced civil rights legislation. In the 1950s, there was very little support from Democrats for civil rights legislation. What little support the Democrats gave to civil rights legislation was almost exclusively in the House as well. That began to change in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, huge majorities of Democrats in Congress routinely voted yes on civil rights legislation.

I might have been wrong to say that by the 1980s Republicans had control of the south. But they certainly do today, and it started in the 1960s. It is hard to argue with this data. We can pretend like the southern electorate did not shift toward the Republicans, but it did shift and your links admit as much. The question is not if it did happen, but why it happened. I never asserted race as a factor. You assumed I was asserting that race is what explained the shift. Your Red State link as well as a 2006 book both assert it was about something else. That is fine. I am claiming the shift occurred but am not stating why.

I want to be clear about something. I pointed it out in my previous post as well. I am not trying to portray the Democrats as genuinely progressive. I was quite explicit that embracing civil rights was about gaining an electoral advantage and not actually caring about underrepresented populations.

Rocinante wrote:Right on cue Goose.

Rocinante wrote:Actually yes, I am referring to Ken Mehlman. There is more to that speech than you quote. But not only him. Michael Steel who was also RNC chair at the time explicitly stated there was a Southern Strategy and that it was wrong.

Of course, Mehlman is gay and Steel is black, so I'm going to guess they don't count?

You fuckin guys.

LooseGoose wrote:I thought you had some official statement, but no, not even close. And yet somehow I'm the one with flimsy arguments. Amazing.

Rocinante wrote:Actually yes, I am referring to Ken Mehlman.  There is more to that speech than you quote.  But not only him. Michael Steel who was also RNC chair at the time explicitly stated there was a Southern Strategy and that it was wrong.  

Of course, Mehlman is gay and Steel is black, so I'm going to guess they don't count?

You fuckin guys.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N---, N---, N---." By 1968 you can't say "N---" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N---, N---."

Turtleneck wrote:I see Loose is dialing up some of the handy data he has bookmarked. Well, how did that work out for last time...

As of 1988, the Democrats had a robust coalition in the South.  They showed strength across Appalachia, in the “black belt” (named for the fertile soil), and in the Rio Grande Valley. Southern Louisiana (Catholics) and Arkansas outside the traditionally red northwest portion of the state were blue. Republicans, by contrast, were strong in the historically Republican areas of southeastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, and western North Carolina. They also held the cities, as metro areas like Miami, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and Northern Virginia were all purple-to-red.

By 1996, not much had changed.  There was some polarization, but the core Democratic coalition was intact:

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Actually yes, I am referring to Ken Mehlman.  There is more to that speech than you quote.  But not only him. Michael Steel who was also RNC chair at the time explicitly stated there was a Southern Strategy and that it was wrong.  

Of course, Mehlman is gay and Steel is black, so I'm going to guess they don't count?

You fuckin guys.

You might find the 1981 Lee Atwater interview to be interesting. Atwater is a former advisor to Reagan and HW Bush, as well as a former RNC chair. To some extent he was arguing that by the time Reagan was in office, the southern strategy was obsolete. However, he certainly implies it was real. Here is a taste.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N---, N---, N---." By 1968 you can't say "N---" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N---, N---."

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

You might find the 1981 Lee Atwater interview to be interesting. Atwater is a former advisor to Reagan and HW Bush, as well as a former RNC chair. To some extent he was arguing that by the time Reagan was in office, the southern strategy was obsolete. However, he certainly implies it was real. Here is a taste.

LALALALALALALALALA!! It never existed. LEFTISTS are the real racists!!!! LALALALALALALALALALA!!

LooseGoose wrote:  Somehow you attribute that to racism in the South

Turtleneck wrote: The question is not if it did happen, but why it happened. I never asserted race as a factor. You assumed I was asserting that race is what explained the shift. Your Red State link as well as a 2006 book both assert it was about something else. That is fine. I am claiming the shift occurred but am not stating why.

LooseGoose wrote:But ignore all that, I'm sure TN and Roc know much more about voting history and voting patterns than 2 data analysts that make their living studying and writing about it.

DWags wrote:1965 voting rights act took a decade to kick in, but once it did voting blocks in the south were also effected. Wallace getting so many votes in the Deep South in 72 who was staunchly segregationist then should also open up your eyes. But it won't.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:  Somehow you attribute that to racism in the South

Yet this is exactly what I said in my post. This a perfect example of why people think you are dishonest in your discussions here.

Turtleneck wrote: The question is not if it did happen, but why it happened. I never asserted race as a factor. You assumed I was asserting that race is what explained the shift. Your Red State link as well as a 2006 book both assert it was about something else. That is fine. I am claiming the shift occurred but am not stating why.

LooseGoose wrote:But ignore all that, I'm sure TN and Roc know much more about voting history and voting patterns than 2 data analysts that make their living studying and writing about it.

Very ironic coming from you. In the "Death of Expertise" thread, when Steve wondered when we will learn to trust experts, you shot back with some remark about how experts are not infallible. I remember you continually pointing out your data was peer reviewed in a thread about sexual assault reporting, but in the media bias thread you told us peer review means nothing. Just so we are on the same page, are you saying expertise, and mechanisms to strengthen expert opinion like peer review, only matter when it is useful to your point? So in this thread the words of "analysts that make their living studying and writing" about something are to be treated as gospel, but it is perfectly fine to challenge "analysts that make their living studying and writing about" something when you disagree?