okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
.
Why do you think most Black people vote Democrat instead of Republican?
Because during the 1950's and early 1960's when the civil rights movement was gaining steam, the democrats supported this movement while the republicans did everything to halt them.
That's all I wanted to know.
Thank you for comin out. God Bless. Goodnight.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
With negroes like you around JT, it is a pleasure to be the man. :-D*suspect I may go to hell for this one*
Nah, you are just (as Brother JT so eloquently put it once upon a time) calling a spade a spade.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
You claimed:""IMO, its no coincidence that Ronald Reagan started his campaign for President in the same small Mississippi community where four civil rights workers were murdered.""
No where does it state what you claim. nowhere. what do you take us for?
I Only see propaganda ....
So, are we arguing semantics now?
Roybatty asked a question regarding voting patterns of Blacks. I answered it giving specific information as to why I thought most Blacks won't have anything to do with the Republican party. Say what you will but I think my point has been proven.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
Two times so you don't miss it. Oh, and Roybatty....nvm those questions, ok?
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
Thi Chi....I'm misinformed you say?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism If the GOP wants to attract black voters, argues TIME's Jack White, it must confront the legacy not only of Trent Lott, but also of former President Reagan
By JACK WHITE
 ARNIE SACHS /CNP/GETTY IMAGES Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades |  |
 | Douglas Brinkley: Mississippi Has Left Lott Behind |
| TIME: Who Could Replace Lott? |
| CNN: Lott Tells BET Comments Were 'Repugnant' |
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" ? a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.
Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle to George W. Bush's commendable and long overdue campaign to persuade more African-Americans to defect from the Democrats to the Republicans. It's doomed to fail until the GOP fesses up its past addiction to race-baiting, and makes a sincere attempt to kick the habit.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
Thi Chi....I'm misinformed you say?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html
Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism If the GOP wants to attract black voters, argues TIME's Jack White, it must confront the legacy not only of Trent Lott, but also of former President Reagan
By JACK WHITE
| ARNIE SACHS /CNP/GETTY IMAGES Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades | |
| Douglas Brinkley: Mississippi Has Left Lott Behind |
| TIME: Who Could Replace Lott? |
| CNN: Lott Tells BET Comments Were 'Repugnant' |
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" ? a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.
Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle to George W. Bush's commendable and long overdue campaign to persuade more African-Americans to defect from the Democrats to the Republicans. It's doomed to fail until the GOP fesses up its past addiction to race-baiting, and makes a sincere attempt to kick the habit.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
Bush won by 500+ votes, ------ do you know how many black folks were actully able to vote but didn't ??????
No, I don't, but I'm sure you do. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter who stayed home. What matters is the people who actually showed up and were not allowed to excercise their right to vote.
the problem with blacks today is eveyone wants to tell the story of how "whitey" did them wrong, nothing wrong with that cause most blacks can indeed tell the story including myself, but to keep BI**&ing and MOANING ABOUT whitey "Ain't" helping the cause -
when one looks at the data of black wealth it is embaraasing to see how much $$$$$ flows thru our hands and communities- we can find the Phat Farm, Tommy wear- Cognac, the Esclades, and every hip hop song around, yet when it comes to the more important things we fail to step up to the plate-
There you go again. No one in this thread blamed "whitey" for anything.
That's true. The people who showed up to vote in Florida and were prevented from doing so had no control over what they could do then. However this time around people are doing what they can by using various means to ensure there won't be repeat of that fiasco. Complaining about being denied your right to vote is not blaming whitey.my granddad always told us kids there are 2 things in life,
1. things you can't control
2 things you can-
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
What I implied was a man willing to be self-sacrificing as compared to many (most?) of todays self-proclaimed black leaders (at least the ones seen on tv). I already gave you two example, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I'll give you a third one, Barack Obama. He's the new poster child for the democrats. He's going to win the U.S. sentate race here in Illinois. He seems like a good enough man, and even has some good ideas. He plays up this "oh I'm helping the poor black folks on the south side...blah blah blah." And "education is the most important issue facing us here in Illinois." Well, guess where HIS kids go to school? The best dam private school in the city of Chicago. That's what I'm talking about. His words say one thing but his actions say something else. His actions say "those public schools are good enough for your kids but not for mine." Yet, he'll get 99% of the black vote. You don't see any thing wrong with that? I'm not saying that this is really any differnt then what a George Bush or John Kerry does but half the white people in the US are telling either canidate to f*ck off. Why doesn't this happen toward black leaders? Recently Jesse Jackson was caught diverting funds (donations) from his RAINDOW / PUSH organization to his girlfriend whom he knocked up. Nothing happened to him. Just a big "oh well, shit happens." Then he turns around, does another rally and racks in millions from the very people he's suppose to be helping. And he's the one who "delivers" the black vote? How wrong is that? I would find that very insulting.Regarding MLK, for every right-winger who butchers MLK's words, I'll give you a person who believes that based solely on the color of his skin he alone has the right to talk about MLK. I never said I was an expert on the life and teachings of MLK, nor am I an expert on any other historical figure such as JFK or any other American I'm proud of. But that doesn't mean that I can't reference them so give it a rest already because cutting and pasting web site information doesn't make you an expert either.
I'm glad you've taken this opportunity to getyour disdain for certain black 'leaders' off your chest. I know boards like these can be awfully theraputic in that way. Now, what exactly do these people have to do with Black voting patterns? They may have a large 'black' following, but they hardly represent EVERY black person. Why do you think most Black people vote Democrat instead of Republican?
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
Come to Chicago and I'll take you to the public housing complexes like the Robert Taylor Homes. Then tell me if you'd want to live there. I believe you wouldn't.
There's no need to do that Roy....I actually grew up in a housing project. I think I know a little bit about what people go through who live in such an area.
You're trying to put words into my mouth. I'm not at all saying that there isn't a need to level the playing field. What I am saying is after spending billions of dollars on programs for the last 35 years, the result has been a pile of shit. The manner in which this money has been spent takes away a persons dignity and that's why we have the problems we do today.I don't think I was 'trying to put words in your mouth'. You brought up MLK and implied that he believed 'thus and so'. I just showed you how wrong you are.
okay, this is not meant to inflame or cause another race debate.
but something here is amiss.
why aren't more blacks getting out and registering to vote?
When Will We Ever Learn?
Dr. King?s Forgotten Speech on Peace
by Paul Rockwell
Oakland, California
Thirty-five years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech that changed my life. I was a student at Union Theological Seminary in New York City in 1967, during the peak of the Vietnam War. Almost by accident a friend invited me across the street to hear Dr. King deliver a comprehensive anti-war address at Riverside Church.
It is not the drama, the excitement of the occasion, nor King?s mellifluous voice passing over the hushed sanctuary as he described the holocaust of Indochina. It is not even the way history later vindicated King?s teachings on war -- everything he predicted came to pass -- that makes his 1967 address so memorable to me. It is the vitality of his teachings for our own lives, the immediate relevance to the arrogance and jingoism of our time, that compels me to recall and reread the Peacemaker?s masterpiece once again.
The economic and moral crisis we are facing today -- the ubiquity of violent crime, the endemic clutch of drugs, the growing poverty of the working poor, the suffocation of millions of decent lives in the ghettos of our cities -- all date back to that fateful turn when American leaders, pressured by big corporations, chose war over peace, empire over civil rights and social progress.
Dr. King saw our crisis coming. ?A few years ago,? he began from his well-lit pulpit, speaking in reference to the anti-poverty programs, when America was moving forward -- ?A few years ago, there was a shining moment in our struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched the programs broken. I was compelled to see the war as the enemy of the poor.?
As Dr. King analyzed the hope-wrecking nature of war, I put down my pen, stopped taking notes, and listened with my heart, as he described, not only the devastation abroad, the injuries and scarred lives of the working class youth returning home, but the spiritual costs of imperialism -- the mendacity of our leaders, the disillusionment of youth. ? A nation,? he said, ? that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.?
King reminded his listeners that U.S. lawlessness abroad breeds violence within the United States as well. ?As I have walked among the desperate, rejected angry men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? Wasn?t our own nation using massive doses of violence to solve its problems? Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly against the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.? King never used the term ?blowback,? but his message was clear: When America sows the wind, it will reap the whirlwind in due time.
The Vietnam War is past. The cold war is over. But King?s teachings about the moral and social costs of militarism and empire are as relevant today as they were 35 years ago. After all, there is still no Marshall Plan for our cities, no jobs program for our youth yearning for hope and direction.
The recent $396 billion military appropriation is a mockery of economic justice. While our cities are in decay, Americans pay more for defense than all potential adversaries and neutral parties combined. The recent $45 billion increase -- a mere add-on -- is more than three times the defense budgets of Iran, Iraq, Libya, North, Korea, Sudan and Syria combined.
As U.S. corporations continue to globalize weaponry and violence for profit, the U.S. has become the primary font of arms proliferation in the world. Subsidized by American taxpayers, U.S. corporations -- Lockheed-Martin, General Electric, General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Hughes Aircraft, to name a few -- sell lethal weapons to more than 40 countries. Assault helicopters, tanks, 50-caliber machine guns, hellfire anti-armor missiles, land-mine dispensing pods, Stinger missiles, fighter jets, rifles, guns -- mechanized violence has become the main currency of American foreign policy. There is hardly a major battlefield where U. S. arms are not involved, and U.S. industries produce arms for both sides in many conflicts: Britain and Argentina in the Falklands, Ethiopia and Somalia in the Horn of Africa. According to USA TODAY, U.S. companies, along with France, helped Iraq build his its arsenal of poison gas and chemical weapons. How easy we forget that President Reagan sold arms to Khomeini, after which President Bush (senior) promoted and backed Saddam Hussein?s 7-year war against Iran.
King once described the sale of weaponry on a world scale as one of the great social crimes of the modern age. His 35-year-old speech still sears my soul, because my own country is still ?the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.? We are all victims, in King?s words, of that ?deadly western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.?
I left Riverside Church inspired by the intensity of the event. The following day, King?s patriotic address caused an outcry in the Media. TIME magazine called it ?demagogic slander, a script for Radio Hanoi.? Nevertheless I can still hear our teacher reciting the words of James Russell Lowell: ?Though the cause of evil prosper yet ?tis truth alone is strong.?
