https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo
not true ?

oragami_itto wrote:There's a little more to the history than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Steve James wrote:It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.
Besides, what's in a name. It's about what you stand for, or against, not what you call yourself. There are lots of Republicans who say that they're rhinos, and are appalled at their party. Robert Mueller, for ex., but there are lots more.
yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues
windwalker wrote:Steve James wrote:It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.
Besides, what's in a name. It's about what you stand for, or against, not what you call yourself. There are lots of Republicans who say that they're rhinos, and are appalled at their party. Robert Mueller, for ex., but there are lots more.yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues
Is this statement true?
LaoDan wrote:The first five minutes seemed accurate, but the ending is highly debatable.
"seemed" ? its not?. If the ending is debatable, debate it
It presupposes that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed significantly from the history that was given earlier in the talk (there is evidence for what some call a switching of stances on many issues related to the two parties). It further gives simplistic one sided statements at the end that could very well be untrue, and asks listeners to base their party support on the very little and weak analysis of the current situation.
didnt get that from it. felt It presented a rational for what those in one party supported and did historically,
coupled with a rationale for why they continue to do so using the same means updated to today's time
Human egos have us thinking that everyone is above average when evaluating themselves [statistically impossible as one half will be below average!], when in reality most individuals are too poorly informed on the numerous subjects that can impact us that we are really incapable of judging what is better or which is correct. I am also no expert, so my opinion is irrelevant, but I do not think that anyone should be swayed by the information presented at the end of the video.
If ones opinion is irrelevant, why would it matter what anyone thinks about the information presented at the end of the video.
Why do you attribute truth to the information presented at the end of the video?
oragami_itto wrote:
Well if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, there's no point in responding to you is there?
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Holy crap, I leave the country for a few months and come back to this?![]()
Only a moron would equate a black eye with hundreds of murders.
Only a moron would get his history from Prager "University" or Desouza.
While I admire the patience of Steve and Itto, it's not worth the time.
windwalker wrote:oragami_itto wrote:
Well if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, there's no point in responding to you is there?
depends on what your looking for...
the wiki is an opinion outlining certain perspective that some use to support
their viewpoints regarding past and current events.
Its your thread....Titled the violent right, you've made it quite clear as to what is acceptable
and what is not.
My post was in point to something that seemed historically
false that didn't accord with things I've heard said about
it.......Was looking for some other view point or conformation
that what was said was true...or not...
oragami_itto wrote: Basic fucking history that one side of the political aisle keeps trying to deny.
As I mentioned before, if the KKK today had anything to do with Democrats, why do they only show up to right-wing political gatherings? Why do right-wing politicians tacitly accept their support? Why do their goals and aspirations so closely align with the political platform of the Republican party?
You do know they also support and endorse candidates on the left.
And remember, I'm only counting acts of violence clearly tied to the right wind political party explicitly. We could implicitly count all white nationalist violence as right wing, but that would tend to obscure the point in the noise.
It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.
yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues
windwalker wrote:LaoDan wrote:The first five minutes seemed accurate, but the ending is highly debatable.
"seemed" ? its not?. If the ending is debatable, debate it
It presupposes that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed significantly from the history that was given earlier in the talk (there is evidence for what some call a switching of stances on many issues related to the two parties). It further gives simplistic one sided statements at the end that could very well be untrue, and asks listeners to base their party support on the very little and weak analysis of the current situation.
didnt get that from it. felt It presented a rational for what those in one party supported and did historically,
coupled with a rationale for why they continue to do so using the same means updated to today's time
Human egos have us thinking that everyone is above average when evaluating themselves [statistically impossible as one half will be below average!], when in reality most individuals are too poorly informed on the numerous subjects that can impact us that we are really incapable of judging what is better or which is correct. I am also no expert, so my opinion is irrelevant, but I do not think that anyone should be swayed by the information presented at the end of the video.
If ones opinion is irrelevant, why would it matter what anyone thinks about the information presented at the end of the video.
Why do you attribute truth to the information presented at the end of the video?
The end of the video is a summation of the presenters view point establishing a basis of understanding of what is being claimed
is not factually true but is often presented as true by those having a narrative based on it.
The clip was in response to some statements made concerning historical events....
Users browsing this forum: gzregorz and 5 guests