Comments on: Convenient Amnesia On The Southern Strategy

By: duros62

duros62 — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:07:30 +0000

So now discrimination is a matter of faith, is that it?
Whatever, Frank.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:07:05 +0000

duros62: Please, please, please don’t imitate that annoying “Haw” exclamation. It sounds like something out of Raymond Massey’s Abe Lincoln in Illinois
And, if you want to believe there is no discrimination in the other 41 states, you can if you want.
People believe there are dead aliens at Roswell, NM; and that we’re descended from monkeys.

By: duros62

duros62 — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:07:23 +0000

I agree that it is practically everywhere. I just am sure that we would disagree as to how much, and what places.

Apparently, it is in 9 southern states.
Haw!

By: duros62

duros62 — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:07:05 +0000

That quote was a year ago
Slow down, Duros.
It s a few comments up: June 30, 2006
My apologies. I was wrong. And so were you.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:07:56 +0000

Apparently, the Republicans and I disagree.
Ain’t democracy grand?

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:06:29 +0000

And you accuse me of offering specious arguments?

The reasons for “singling out 9 states” lies in the well-documented history of discrimination in voting in those states.

Pretend all you like that those states are no different from the other 41. It just isn’t so.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:06:04 +0000

Quaker, stop being ridiculous.
You had 43 minutes to read

And, to the extent that there is any racism at all, I agree that it is practically everywhere

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:06:56 +0000

So, I ask you again: Why single out 9 southern states?
The Civil War, and Reconstruction, are over.

And that’s when discrimination ended?

Haw!

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:06:37 +0000

According to you, Oliver, racism isn’t over anywhere.
And, to the extent that there is any racism at all, I agree that it is practically everywhere. I just am sure that we would disagree as to how much, and what places.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:06:38 +0000

Why single out 9 southern states? Because racism isn’t over.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:06:29 +0000

That quote was a year ago
Slow down, Duros.
It’s a few comments up: June 30, 2006

Quaker, you’ve been watching too many lawyer shows. There are no ex post facto laws in America.
That means that when something is declared illegal, or unconstitutional, it is illegal or unconstitutional now.
Didn’t you realize I was being sarcastic?
Incidentally, why don’t you address the point that we would be hard pressed to find a state where there was no discrimination of some kind.
So, I ask you again: Why single out 9 southern states?
The Civil War, and Reconstruction, are over.

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:06:07 +0000

The discrimination they practiced in those states was not unconstitutional, even in part, until 1954 hardly generations.

I think you’re looking at the world backwards, Frank.

The discrimination didn’t become unconstitutional when the Supremes said so. The court examined existing practices and found that they didn’t measure up.

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:06:34 +0000

Well, now, to be fair, I haven’t been coming here as long as you. That quote was a year ago, and it doesn’t say that Oliver thinks blacks are dumb. the operative point is this: That s what leads to your next contention –

(Y)our..contention, Frank. (Ok, i don’t know if it was your contention or someone else, but it was not Oliver’s contention)

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:06:31 +0000

That s what leads to your next contention – the moronic implication that us blacks are just so dumb and the Democrats got to scares us fo sho . Black Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic because for all of the party s faults, it is the one that supports black America because its the right thing to do morally.
Oliver Willis Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:32 am

Right, Quaker, there was only discrimination in those states
May I split a hair (since you so love to do it yourself)? The discrimination they practiced in those states was not unconstitutional, even in part, until 1954 — hardly generations.
Care to argue about the meaning of discrimination?
Or unconstitutional?
Or perhaps generations?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:06:59 +0000

OK, fine, analogous?
I was referring to Oliver’s playing the race card.
As a Democratic, he’s got race – card playing skills.
He keeps saying blacks don’t vote for Democratics because they’re dumb.
But they’re not smart enough to see the non – racism of the Republicans.
Why?
Because the Democratics are yelling, “The Republicans won’t let us give you stuff!”, so blacks don’t hear Republicans saying, “You don’t need that stuff!”

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:06:43 +0000

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:06:38 +0000

Please don t even try to play the race card with regards to a storm that killed more whites as a percentage of the population than blacks.

Somehow, i don’t think those folks will really count that much at the polls.

By: duros62

duros62 — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:06:21 +0000

To quote you
And of course if duros62 says it s wrong with no support, documentation or evidence, then it must be wrong.

Of course you can cite support and evidence that Oliver has ever said “blacks don t vote for Democratics because they re dumb.”

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:06:15 +0000

GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.

Yes, it’s not fair to single out those states that have practiced generations of unconstitutional discrimination!

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:06:49 +0000

How is that a lie, Frank?
Ok, gross distortion, then…
A postponement is not a refusal, even on Krypton.

He claimed love for homosexuals, but still denied them the right to get married. Kind of like an abusive husband claiming he loves his wife, but she had those punches coming.
a) He didn’t “deny” them the right to marry — he said he didn’t think they should.
b) Are you comparing opposition to gay marriage to spousal abuse?
Man, you lefties are intense.

Oliver, does it really make a difference what publication the interview was in? Did Hawkins ask questions? Did Bohannon answer them?
There s no shift of blacks to the GOP, even though blacks as a whole are conservative. The point is that your contradictory statement is evidence that you are wrong.
Let me put the question this way: How long will the majority of black voters follow the Democratics further and further to the left?

And what is this “post – Katrina America” nonsense? Please don’t even try to play the race card with regards to a storm that killed more whites as a percentage of the population than blacks.