The Knockout Game

[Ibrahim]

Needs more emoticons, I don't quite believe you yet.

[Enki]

Reminiscent of the "wilding" crime spree in NYC and the truck-dragging murders of blacks and gays. Yellow journalists elevating criminal behavior in order to sensationalize a story.

^This

[Mr. Perfect]

If you guys got to go yellow over Trayvon you need to let other people go yellow also.

[Mr. Perfect]

The whole point of this is if it was white kids doing this to black people, case for case, then the reaction of ibs and the media would be completely opposite.

Obviously.

[Nonc Hilaire]

If you guys got to go yellow over Trayvon you need to let other people go yellow also.

Really? Genuflect you. Your authenticity is destroyed.

[Mr. Perfect]

Not really.

[Mr. Perfect]

The whole point of this is if it was white kids doing this to black people, case for case, then the reaction of ibs and the media would be completely opposite.

Obviously.

[Doc]

If you guys got to go yellow over Trayvon you need to let other people go yellow also.

Really? Genuflect you. Your authenticity is destroyed.

I never thought positively about pretend-a-cops. I don't think Yellow left journalism is topped by anyone. I watch CNN carry on about the WWII war memorial protests of mostly WWII vets being a racist attack on Obama because they found one protester that was a racist put him on and no one else at the protest.


Also when giffords was shoot there was a rush to judgement that it was Teaparty inspired. Which was complete BS as the shooter was the son of a democratic county employee who had repeatedly used her political connections to keep her son the shooter out of trouble for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting#Media

Political

In the wake of the shooting, Democrats and Republicans both called for a cooling of political rhetoric and a return to bipartisanship.[13] On the eve of the shooting, Giffords had written to a Republican friend, Trey Grayson, Secretary of State of Kentucky, saying, "we need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."[123] In March 2010, Giffords had expressed concern about the use of crosshairs on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats, including Giffords's, in Arizona's 8th district. Shortly after the map's posting and the subsequent vandalizing of her office that month, Giffords said, "We're in Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action." At that point in the interview, however, the interviewer said, "campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years."[21][124] The image was removed from Palin's "takebackthe20" website following the January shootings.[124][125][126] Palin responded to her critics in a January 12 video, rejecting the notion that anyone other than the gunman could bear any responsibility for the Tucson shooting, and accusing the press of manufacturing a "blood libel" to blame her and the right wing for the attacks.[127][128][129]

The political climate in the United States and in Arizona in particular was pointed to by some observers as a possible contributing factor for the violent act. For example, Clarence Dupnik, Pima County Sheriff, initially expressed concern that overheated political rhetoric and violence may be related, observing, "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous." He believed that Arizona had unfortunately become "the capital" of such feelings. "We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry," he said.[130][131] But, Dupnik later said that he had no evidence that the killings were a result of anything particular which Loughner may have read or heard.[132] International media referred to the political climate in the United States and the Palin map in particular.[133][134][135][136][137] The French newspaper Le Monde said that the attack seemed to confirm "an alarming premonition that has been gaining momentum for a long time: that the verbal and symbolic violence that the most radical right-wing opponents have used in their clash with the Obama administration would at some point lead to tragic physical violence."[138] President Barack Obama called the shooting an "unspeakable tragedy", adding that "such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society".[139] Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the attack "senseless and cruel violence"[140] and House Speaker John Boehner said, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve. Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society".[141] Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement noting, "we in the judiciary have suffered the terrible loss of one of our own", with the death of Chief Judge John Roll.[142]

Political figures such as Arizona's United States Senators Jon Kyl[143] and John McCain,[144] House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi[145] issued statements. Numerous foreign politicians additionally commented on the shooting, including Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon,[146] British Prime Minister David Cameron,[145] Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero,[147] and Cuba's Fidel Castro.[148] The website GiffordsIsLying.com, run by Giffords' former opponent Jesse Kelly, was replaced with a single page urging support for Giffords and her family.

Senator Chuck Schumer called for a fresh look at gun control laws in the United States, including the possibility of prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines, and prohibiting a person who has been rejected for military service due to drug use from owning a gun.[14] Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter T. King announced that he would introduce a bill to ban the carrying of firearms within 1,000 feet (300 m) of certain federal officials.[149] Representative Carolyn McCarthy announced that she would introduce legislation to ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines to civilians.[150]
Media

Some media commentators, such as Howard Kurtz and Toby Harnden, criticized what they perceived as a rush to judgment about the shooter's motivation, disputing suggestions that the shooting was the result of the Tea Party movement or anything in connection to Palin.[151][152][153][154] Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed piece arguing that political rhetoric had become toxic.[155] With renewed calls to tone down political rhetoric after the shooting,[156][157][158] Keith Olbermann apologized for any of his own words that might have incited violence saying, "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence."[156] Jon Stewart stated that he did not know whether or not the political environment contributed to the shooting, but, "For all the hyperbole and vitriol that's become a part of our political process—when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. ... Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often."

Others

On the night of January 11, 2011, Governor Brewer signed emergency legislation to prohibit protests within 300 feet (91 m) of any funeral services, in response to an announcement by the Westboro Baptist Church that it planned to picket the funeral of shooting victim Christina-Taylor Green.[164][165] The members of the congregation agreed to appear on talk radio in exchange for dropping their plans to picket the funeral.

On Sunday, January 16, 2011, eight days after the shooting, Vietnam War veteran James Eric Fuller, who had been shot in the knee during the attack, was arrested for disorderly conduct at a town hall meeting. After Tucson Tea Party figure Trent Humphries, who had faulted Giffords for not having enough security, stated that gun control measures should not be discussed until all those killed in the shooting were buried, Fuller allegedly took a picture of Humphries and shouted, "You're dead." In an interview during the week after the shooting, Fuller had criticized Palin and what he called the "Tea Party crime-syndicate" for promoting a divisive political climate before the attacks.[16] The police then committed him to an undisclosed medical facility to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. A police spokesman stated that the hospital will determine when he will be released.[166] Meanwhile Humphries said that he was worried about Fuller's threat, and the dozens of other angry e-mails he received from people blaming right-wing political rhetoric for contributing to the assassination attempt on Giffords.[167]

[Enki]

The concept of a left-wing media is

[Doc]

The concept of a left-wing media is

Alinksy is all you have to respond with as the facts are 100% against you.

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/evidence-of ... ral-media/

The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

Does this affect coverage? Is there really liberal bias? The answers are, of course, yes and yes. It couldn't be any other way. Think for a moment if the numbers were reversed and conservatives had outnumbered liberals in the media for the past four decades. Would President Bush be getting kinder coverage? For sure, and I'll bet any liberal would agree with that. Would President Reagan have been treated with less hostility if the national press was conservative-dominated? Yes, again. And I could go on.

The Pew poll also found that 55 percent of national journalists believe that Bush should be treated more critically by the press than he has been. They think he's gotten off too easy, despite empirical evidence of media Bush bashing. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has examined the coverage of Bush by the broadcast network evening news shows and found only two periods of favorable coverage: in the weeks after September 11 and during the actual war in Iraq. This year, roughly 75 percent of the stories about the Democratic presidential candidates were positive. For Bush, they've been 60-plus percent negative.

With the evidence of liberal dominance so overwhelming, a leading press critic is now calling for more ideological diversity in the media. Tom Rosenstiel, who helped design the Pew poll and who runs the Project for Excellence in Journalism, says it's necessary not to think just of diversity that makes newsrooms "look like America," but to create a press corps that "thinks like America."

In truth, the effort to hire more minorities and women has had the effect of making the media more liberal. Both these groups tend to have liberal politics, and this is accentuated by the fact that many of the women recruited into journalism are young and single, precisely those with the most liberal views. "By diversifying the profession in one way," Rosenstiel says, "they were making it more homogenous in another."

Rosenstiel insists it would be quite possible for news organizations to find journalists with conservative views to hire. "There are ways to change the culture of the newsroom," he says. Media recruiters can turn to different colleges than the ones where they've traditionally recruited. They can look to different parts of the country. And they can seek assistance from organizations that already train young conservatives for careers in journalism.

Those who still doubt the press needs fresh, preferably conservative, blood, should consider these numbers: In 1999, 12 percent of journalists said fairness and balance were a big problem for the media. Now, in the Pew survey, only 5 percent say so--this, after further proof of liberal dominance and noisy debates about liberal bias. And in 1999, 11 percent said ethics and standards were a major concern. But after high-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism, only 5 percent agree today. The case for ideological realignment of the media is closed.

[Enki]

Alinksy is all you have to respond with as the facts are 100% against you.

That the media is 'left-wing' is an opinion. Not a fact. I like how your Saint Alinsky has given you a framework to fit all of your most deeply cherished biases though.

The left-wing feels just as unrepresented by the mainstream media as you do. They call it the 'corporate' media. But of course they consider Barack Obama to be a right-wing politician, and consider it a major coup that the right was able to move the center into the middle of the right wing and disregard the left wing entirely. But if you weren't so insular and actually read what the left has to say about itself and what it believes, you'd see that. But hey, you've turned Saul Alinsky into some type of guru, so you're on the right track. It's a baby step toward getting out of that insularity.

Now go ahead and dismiss my every word by quoting rules for radicals.

[Doc]

Alinksy is all you have to respond with as the facts are 100% against you.

That the media is 'left-wing' is an opinion. Not a fact.

It is not one but a series of polls taken over decades. You only have Alinsky to fall back on,

[/quote]I like how your Saint Alinsky has given you a framework to fit all of your most deeply cherished biases though. [/quote]

Alinksy is your rules not mine.

The left-wing feels just as unrepresented by the mainstream media as you do.

You are right. It is so sad and unfair for the left wing !!! Boo Hoo !!

They call it the 'corporate' media. But of course they consider Barack Obama to be a right-wing politician, and consider it a major coup that the right was able to move the center into the middle of the right wing and disregard the left wing entirely.

Yeah the evil corporate media that hires journalist that call themselves leftists.


But if you weren't so insular and actually read what the left has to say about itself and what it believes, you'd see that. But hey, you've turned Saul Alinsky into some type of guru, so you're on the right track. It's a baby step toward getting out of that insularity. [/quote]

So how come you practice what Alinky preached so much Tinker?

Now go ahead and dismiss my every word by quoting rules for radicals. [/quote]
n this

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

I posted facts in the last several posts in this thread with links. You have posted nothing but your own opinion and ridicule of what I said... Is your personal ethics driving that or Alinsky's rules because you have nothing else to say?

[Ibrahim]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

[Doc]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

Again Ibrahim Does the right have a different culture than yours?

[Ibrahim]

Alinksy is your rules not mine.

Did you even know who Alinsky was before talk radio told you he was linked to Obama somehow? The whole backlash was so racist and anti-Semitic you'd think it was right out of some Dixiecrat/Klan speech . "Scratch a the surface of the Negro revolutionary and you'll find the communist Jew underneath! Just waiting to rob the Christian Aryan man of all he values and had built."

[Ibrahim]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

Again Ibrahim Does the right have a different culture than yours?

Elaborate on this question. I can't tell what you're asking.

[Doc]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

Again Ibrahim Does the right have a different culture than yours?

Elaborate on this question. I can't tell what you're asking.

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

[Ibrahim]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

Again Ibrahim Does the right have a different culture than yours?

Elaborate on this question. I can't tell what you're asking.

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

[Doc]

The concept of a left-wing media is

You have to understand how ignorant of political history the fringe right is. The media, aside from talk radio which is all fringe right, and the Rupert Murdock fiefdom, is classically liberal with a few Whiggish outliers. That puts it in the middle at best. But to the fringe right there is no daylight between beige centrist liberals and anarchists. They can't tell the difference between anything left of old-school Republicans, who are already too far left.

The fringe right has waaay more media presence than the fringe left.

Again Ibrahim Does the right have a different culture than yours?

Elaborate on this question. I can't tell what you're asking.

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

Racism as you call it is based on what? It is not genes you and tinker have already said that.

[Ibrahim]

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

Racism as you call it is based on what? It is not genes you and tinker have already said that.

Where did you get racism from the preceding post?

You'll have a hard time arguing that party politics is a version of racism, though a given political party could be racist as part of its platform.

[Doc]

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

Racism as you call it is based on what? It is not genes you and tinker have already said that.

Where did you get racism from the preceding post?

You'll have a hard time arguing that party politics is a version of racism, though a given political party could be racist as part of its platform.

Arguing that point is not so hard. "racism" comes from a culture. In the US the Democrats turned "Racism' into a political culture for political expediency. They were completely for segregation in the south until they for it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1985143/posts

[noddy]

sometimes its easier to list the things that sheltered middle class folks arent scared of.

scary people from other races is but a small subset of their terrified existence.

[Ibrahim]

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

Racism as you call it is based on what? It is not genes you and tinker have already said that.

Where did you get racism from the preceding post?

You'll have a hard time arguing that party politics is a version of racism, though a given political party could be racist as part of its platform.

Arguing that point is not so hard. "racism" comes from a culture.

This statement is redundant. Racism is based upon social constructs, it exists within cultures. But so does opposition to racism, both equally "come from" culture. E.g. the slaver and the abolitionist in America were both from and part of the same culture.

In the US the Democrats turned "Racism' into a political culture for political expediency. They were completely for segregation in the south until they for it.

Yes. The parties switched roles in the 1960's. The Democrats has previously exploited white racism to collect votes, now the Republicans do. But that isn't inherent to either party of to far-right or center-right politics in general. Its a expediency and a cynical calculation made by specific people at specific times.

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






Why isn't this in the racism thread in the philosophy forum? Aside from the duplication of arguments in two threads this isn't the point of one of them.

[Doc]

Do you feel that you belong to a culture distinctly different from right wing culture?

Right/left wing is contextual within a culture. E.g. there are right wing and left with parties in Canada, and I've voted for both depending on the candidate and the issues involved, etc.

Racism as you call it is based on what? It is not genes you and tinker have already said that.

Where did you get racism from the preceding post?

You'll have a hard time arguing that party politics is a version of racism, though a given political party could be racist as part of its platform.

Arguing that point is not so hard. "racism" comes from a culture.

This statement is redundant. Racism is based upon social constructs, it exists within cultures. But so does opposition to racism, both equally "come from" culture. E.g. the slaver and the abolitionist in America were both from and part of the same culture.

Oh there was a difference. The south was about a new American aristocracy based on slavery. The north was about industry and anti-slavery. By the point war broke out. So culturally the country was divided. After the war white southerners felt they were a foreign occupied country. And in fact did n30ot even celebrate American independence day the fourth of July for 30 some years after the war was over.

In the US the Democrats turned "Racism' into a political culture for political expediency. They were complelely for segregation in the south until they for it.

Yes. The parties switched roles in the 1960's. The Democrats has previously exploited white racism to collect votes, now the Republicans do. [/quote]

What the republicans object to is welfare. Which is not the same thing as racism.

[/quote] But that isn't inherent to either party of to far-right or center-right politics in general. Its a expediency and a cynical calculation made by specific people at specific times.[/quote]

If that is true why has the republican party supported civil rights for 150 plus years and are still voting for them?

OR is this just more Republican "racism"?:

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here’s an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they “are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws”…

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

“Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….

So the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

And I’m tired of the recitation that Southern Democrats became racist Republicans and took those tendencies with them. Even today, it never takes long for a Democrat to play the race card purely for political advantage.

BTW this is an image from the DNC's web site from 2010 that inspired the author of the above article to write it

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

That was based on the political expediency of two presidential candidates. The party as a whole still voted for civil rights.

Why isn't this in the racism thread in the philosophy forum? Aside from the duplication of arguments in two threads this isn't the point of one of them.

Yeah I agree "the knock out game" is partly about race Perhaps there should be a forum rather than a thread

[Nonc Hilaire]

"Partly about race" is a good description. Individual attitudes are important.

Image of Black woman in the U.S. protecting a white supremacist from crowd violence. More violent white folks in this crowd photo than blacks.