If there really are Democrats pandering to blacks, they need to stop. Why?

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF BLACKS DO NOT VOTE.

I understand rational voter abstension, but I'm not sure if minorities really have that luxury since they are, in fact, in the minority. I don't know though. I'm a little concerned because I think black interests have always been an afterthought for politicians, and now I feel like we're starting to see those interests completely ignored.

?

2/10/2006 4:31:16 PM

they dont really pander to them as much as say things during campaign time and not really act on them

kinda like republicans and the religious right

2/10/2006 4:34:17 PM

the democrats began to take the black vote for granted as if they would always have it

2/10/2006 4:35:34 PM

kinda like the republicans and rural america

2/10/2006 4:48:53 PM

yes i guess so, but apparently the republicans, at least in the last presidential election, got enough rural americans to vote for their candidate

2/10/2006 4:49:41 PM

in your last sentence
replace "republicans" with "conservative churches and same sex marriage referendums"

2/10/2006 5:00:10 PM

either way, that doesnt change the outcome of the election

2/10/2006 5:01:41 PM

never said it did

just want to give credit to what really got us a second bush term

2/10/2006 5:05:24 PM

republicans should pander to blacks,explaining how all that stuff about not letting blacks have civil rights was just a joke.

2/10/2006 5:06:37 PM

PUNK'D

2/10/2006 5:17:58 PM

Quote :

"just want to give credit to what really got us a second bush term "

i think the democrats should get credit for that

2/10/2006 5:22:21 PM

zing

2/10/2006 5:27:59 PM

kinda like the republicans and rural americafiscal conservatives

2/10/2006 8:16:37 PM

that makes no sense

2/10/2006 8:24:48 PM

how so?

you aren't seriously contending that the GOP hasn't sold out the fiscal conservative wing of the party, are you?

2/10/2006 9:00:49 PM

Quote :

"republicans should pander to blacks,explaining how all that stuff about not letting blacks have civil rights was just a joke."

Pure ignorance at its finest. Without overwhelming Republican support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it would never have passed.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml

Quote :

"Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success. Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Quote :

"On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record/"

2/10/2006 9:32:39 PM

What exactly do you mean by "black interests"? Black interest should be American interests, as we are all Americans. I don't even know why blacks vote for the Democrats. It's socialism that has destroyed the black community, socialism caused by Democrats. IMO, a black voting for a Democrat is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

2/10/2006 9:37:23 PM

Quote :

"Black interest should be American interests, as we are all Americans."

[/thread]

Unfortunately, this has been forgotten...

2/10/2006 9:45:21 PM

It's funny when Republicans say that welfare ruined the black community. As if they started off in such a good position, and went downhill as soon as we established social services.

When in reality their economic status as a whole has been steadily rising since the civil rights movement. In fact poor blacks are now rising above the poverty line faster than poor whites.

The fact that they're still worse off than other ethnic groups is a reflection of their status prior to the movement, not anything that happened afterwards.

Quote :

"Black interest should be American interests, as we are all Americans."

American interests should be black interests, as we are all Americans.



[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2006 9:47:11 PM

Quote :

"American interests should be include black interests, as we are all Americans."

2/10/2006 9:53:00 PM

Yeah, thanks for switching that around there. That's what I meant, but I couldn't get the wording together right.

2/10/2006 9:54:02 PM

Quote :

"they dont really pander to them as much as say things during campaign time and not really act on them kinda like republicans and the religious right"

republicans cater to the religious right all the time.


as for wlfpck4life, the majority of those democrats who voted against the civil rights act became republicans. Have you ever heard of the southern strategy?

2/10/2006 9:56:44 PM

The GOP shift in the south had nothing to do with civil rights but rather the influx of radicals that hijacked the Democratic Party. The south has always been more Conservative to begin with and it was really more of a natural shift. The way young Democrats showed their collective asses during Woodstock, their protests of Vietnam, the rise of the welfare state, the failed "great society" experiment, amongst other issues led to the shift.

It's also interesting to note that the only man left in the Senate that voted against Civil Rights is a Democrat - Senator Bryd of WV, former KKK member.

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 10:04 PM. Reason : more]

2/10/2006 10:04:07 PM

Thank you for that insight.

And for repeating it every week as if it means something.

2/10/2006 10:16:18 PM

If you liberals insist on dredging up your typical straw man about the Republicans and Civil Rights then I have no choice but to set the record straight. Sorry if the truth sucks.

2/10/2006 10:22:31 PM

Wlfpk4Life...you should leave TWW you fucker

you dont know shit because you dont hate Bush as much as some other TWWers

they dont like you if you dont hate Bush as much as they do

2/10/2006 10:34:01 PM

facts are not neccessarily the truth.

Byrd has long since denounced his membership in the KKK, and has been on the side of human equlity ever since, so what on earth does this have to do about truth and today's Democrats?

2/10/2006 10:44:27 PM

Quote :

"you aren't seriously contending that the GOP hasn't sold out the fiscal conservative wing of the party, are you?"

Yes. I am seriously contending that point.

2/10/2006 10:47:59 PM

^^it has about the same to do today with democrats today as republican "opposition" to civil rights back in the day does to republicans today

2/10/2006 10:48:23 PM

^^^^

Quote :

"Byrd has long since denounced his membership in the KKK, and has been on the side of human equlity ever since, so what on earth does this have to do about truth and today's Democrats?"

I'll be happy to take Sen. Byrd at his word if others stop making up stuff about Republicans, especially in the south, having racist motives.

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 10:51 PM. Reason : for TreeTwista]

2/10/2006 10:51:04 PM

^^no, i totally agree that the GOP has sold out the fiscal conservatives in the party. i don't see how you could possibly argue otherwise. i was talking about Prawn Star saying "how so?" after you posted that.

2/10/2006 10:53:01 PM

Ah, gotcha.

I was about to say, I thought teh duke was smarter than that.

2/10/2006 10:57:08 PM

is boonie not commenting on Byrd ndthe KKK?

2/10/2006 10:57:39 PM

Quote :

"Byrd has long since denounced his membership in the KKK, and has been on the side of human equlity ever since, so what on earth does this have to do about truth and today's Democrats?"

2/10/2006 11:00:33 PM

Quote :

"facts are not neccessarily the truth."

I can't believe noone caught this. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!

2/10/2006 11:11:35 PM

Quote :

"In the 1964 presidential race, Goldwater adopted an extremely conservative stance. In particular, he emphasized the issue of what he called "states' rights". As a conservative, Goldwater did not favor strong action by the federal government. For instance, though not a segregationist personally, he strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that, first, it was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and second, it was an interference with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose. This was a popular stand in the Southern states; there can be no doubt that however some individuals might have interpreted Goldwater's position, the States' Rights appeal was both subtle and profound in evoking, appealing to, and winning racist Southern white voters to the so-called New Right. The level of violence directed against the Civil Rights marchers, leaders, and sympathizers, as well as the very public shows of deference that Southern political figures lavished upon various white supremacists occasionally brought to the docket for illegal activities can leave no doubt as to the clarion-like call of the revived "states' rights" arguments. All the more telling, indeed, are the results of the election: The only states that Goldwater won in 1964 besides Arizona were five Deep South states; Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina."

The southern strategy was based entirely on segregation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

2/10/2006 11:29:44 PM

Because wikipedia is the most reliable source ever!

From the frontpage of their website:

Quote :

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

2/10/2006 11:48:00 PM

Quote :

"When in reality their economic status as a whole has been steadily rising since the civil rights movement. "

No it hasn't. Their economic status hasn't changed much since the mid-60's. In that time, whites median family income has gone up more overall, and more percentage-wise as well.

Quote :

"In fact poor blacks are now rising above the poverty line faster than poor whites."

I have no idea how you would track such a statistic. If you are basing this purely on racial poverty rates, that's probably true for the past 10 years.

Quote :

"The fact that they're still worse off than other ethnic groups is a reflection of their status prior to the movement, not anything that happened afterwards"

Education levels and incarceration rates play a much larger role than their status prior to the civil rights movement.

2/10/2006 11:49:09 PM

^^ No shit, anybody can edit wiki? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!!!1@

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
Here's a peer reviewed study that says, with regards to scientific entries, wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

2/11/2006 12:17:14 AM

Quote :

"facts are not neccessarily the truth."

Think about it

Here's a hint: Farenheit 9/11 was CHOCK FULL of facts.


^^ I'm basing my post on a story I read in the Washington Post a few months ago. You're basing your post on...? I mean, you're telling me the economic status of blacks has been ~100% stagnant since the 60's? Do you expect anyone to believe that?


[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 1:12 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2006 12:57:34 AM

I said economic status hasn't changed "much", which is the truth. As I stated, median family income has risen more for whites than it has for blacks.

here's a source: (its a bit dated)

http://www.access.gpo.gov/eop/ca/pdfs/ch5.pdf

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 1:17 AM. Reason : 2]

2/11/2006 1:16:10 AM

That report bolsters my argument.

A) there's no downward movement in median black income during or after the sixties (thus nothing's led to the ruin of the black community, since no such ruin occurred)

B) there's a huge reduction in poverty amongst blacks once social programs began.

Hence:

Quote :

"It's socialism that has destroyed the black community, socialism caused by Democrats. IMO, a black voting for a Democrat is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

is fundamentally wrong.

2/11/2006 1:23:36 AM

Your statement that black economic status as a whole has been stadily rising since the civil rights movement is fundamentally wrong.

A lot of this depends on how you interpret the statistics.

For example, poverty rates among black children steadily rose for 25 years between 1968 and 1993. During this time period, median family income for blacks stayed the same in 1996 dollars, while whites saw their median family income increase by more than $7,000 in this time period.

It was only in the mid to late 90's that blacks saw any real improvement in income. Was that a result of the economic boom, or was it a result of welfare reform? It could have been a mix of both.

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 1:37 AM. Reason : 2]

2/11/2006 1:37:25 AM

It was probably more a result of "it took 25 years for a new generation of blacks to grow up in de jure equality"

2/11/2006 1:47:29 AM

Quote :

"It was probably more a result of "it took 25 years for a new generation of blacks to grow up in de jure equality which was catalyzed largely by the "failed" Great Society legislation""

2/11/2006 3:56:14 AM

Quote :

"Pure ignorance at its finest. Without overwhelming Republican support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it would never have passed."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
v
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
vBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH









Thank God for repulicans. Republicans are essentially responsible for black civil rights, desegregation and anti-slavery laws.

Youre fucking insane.


Have you ever bothered to take one history class?

[Edited on February 11, 2006 at 4:47 AM. Reason : -]

2/11/2006 4:46:41 AM

Of course not. There are no conservative historians in academia. Haven't you ever read Newsmax?

2/11/2006 5:06:15 AM

^^ Evidently you haven't taken many history classes because I have shown you the breakdown of the votes for civil rights. A larger percentage of Republicans voted for it. Without the GOP it would have never passed.

2/11/2006 7:50:35 AM

you obviously never took a history class. Yes the then GOP voted for it. The GOP that was actually socially liberal. You would not identify yourself with that GOP today. You'd call them pinkos

2/11/2006 7:57:15 AM

Quote :

"republicans cater to the religious right all the time."

what have the actually gotten done for the religious right

2/11/2006 10:10:48 AM