The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kri...-tea-party

WMU ‘s LZ. Granderson says so.

But Prof Cornel West said “Black faces in High places failed to deliver”. Under the Obama Admin leadership at AG, POTUS among others failed to rep as evidence of not delivering.

The tea party was predicated on “no taxation w/o representation.

West is saying under BO we had rep at the highest level. Instead of improvement it became incendiary.

Is this “party about injustice” or as Rahm said, don’t waste a good opportunity...”(?)

No, it’s more analogous to the tarring and feathering of Boston citizens, which I think almost nobody remembers fondly and almost everyone agrees is an example of the injustice and careless rage of mobs.

I don't know why if a white person comits an obvious crime on a black person that is necessary reflective of societal or systematic racism. That white cop was a disturbed sick F. But I don't know that he wouldn't have done something like that to a white, Asian, Hispanic, or any other person, based on what we know at this point. People of all races are murdered, by people of all different races. I am not suggesting that this wasn't a racist act, but even if it was, why is "understandable" that people are going to respond this way? If it is a "protest", what are they protesting which can only be illustrated by destroying property and hurting people who had nothing to do with the crimes of one man (a man whose actions are not reflective of most Americans, but rather by a diturbed section of the population). The true racist in America love what they are seeing right now. They love seeing black people, and others, flooding the streets of cities throughout the country and torching the property of innocent bystanders. It is exactly what they want, and it is stupid for anyone to think otherwise. How shallow minded those rioters are.

I honestly don't even understand "peaceful protests" at this point. Protest are appropriate if there is some institutional issue. If there is, which institution are you protesting, and what is the policy of that institution which is problematic? Then focus the protest to those things.

When the Republicans enacted the civil rights laws, against the overwhelmingly objections, and "no" votes of every single Democrat in Congress, it was after very thoughtful efforts of MLK, who fought and died to change laws which favored segregation and other racist and unfair policies. I am quite sure MLK would be appalled by these current riots. Admittedly, I'm sure he would also be appalled by the murder which seemingly triggered reaction.

This country has been imploding, and before people blame Trump, I will remind that it started long before Trump was president. Trump became president because of the division that existed long before then. Political correctness gone haywire, socialist policies, rewarding bad behavior and the worst types of people, all at the expense of those who generally follow the laws, and are self responsible.

It is like we have been living in a bizarro world. Twilight zone.

One man's opinion on that analogy...

https://youtu.be/6WfSSr4nowE?t=400

(05-31-2020 02:58 PM)ess Wrote:  One man's opinion on that analogy...

https://youtu.be/6WfSSr4nowE?t=400

Good stuff.

Dear brovol,
If, you are referring to the actual vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in your initial statement, you are incorrect by stating every democrat voted against it. That is simply not the case.

(05-31-2020 03:50 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear brovol,
If, you are referring to the actual vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in your initial statement, you are incorrect by stating every democrat voted against it. That is simply not the case.

Dear Ken,

Please share the vote totals; Republicans and Democrats.

(05-31-2020 02:39 PM)brovol Wrote:  I don't know why if a white person comits an obvious crime on a black person that is necessary reflective of societal or systematic racism. That white cop was a disturbed sick F. But I don't know that he wouldn't have done something like that to a white, Asian, Hispanic, or any other person, based on what we know at this point. People of all races are murdered, by people of all different races. I am not suggesting that this wasn't a racist act, but even if it was, why is "understandable" that people are going to respond this way? If it is a "protest", what are they protesting which can only be illustrated by destroying property and hurting people who had nothing to do with the crimes of one man (a man whose actions are not reflective of most Americans, but rather by a diturbed section of the population). The true racist in America love what they are seeing right now. They love seeing black people, and others, flooding the streets of cities throughout the country and torching the property of innocent bystanders. It is exactly what they want, and it is stupid for anyone to think otherwise. How shallow minded those rioters are.

I honestly don't even understand "peaceful protests" at this point. Protest are appropriate if there is some institutional issue. If there is, which institution are you protesting, and what is the policy of that institution which is problematic? Then focus the protest to those things.

When the Republicans enacted the civil rights laws, against the overwhelmingly objections, and "no" votes of every single Democrat in Congress, it was after very thoughtful efforts of MLK, who fought and died to change laws which favored segregation and other racist and unfair policies. I am quite sure MLK would be appalled by these current riots. Admittedly, I'm sure he would also be appalled by the murder which seemingly triggered reaction.

This country has been imploding, and before people blame Trump, I will remind that it started long before Trump was president. Trump became president because of the division that existed long before then. Political correctness gone haywire, socialist policies, rewarding bad behavior and the worst types of people, all at the expense of those who generally follow the laws, and are self responsible.

It is like we have been living in a bizarro world. Twilight zone.

well said.

The vote in the House was 289 Yea (153 Democrats, 136 Republicans) to 126 Nay (91 and 35).

In the Senate it was 73 Yea (46 D and 27 R) to 27 Nay (21 and 6).

Basically only Democrats to vote Nay were from the south ("Dixiecrats").

Not even close, brovol.

Republicans were less split on it.

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)

Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)

Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)

Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)

Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

The "no" votes on that act were 78% Democrats, and the Democrats filibustered to prevent a vote. The Act passed then, but civil rights for black people were rejected forever before that by Democrats. They only existed because of Republicans. A review of the history on the issue of African American oppression starts with the Democrats, and still continues through Democrat policies, which continue to treat minorities as if they need to be provided for and taken care of by the government. Handouts buy votes, but they don't lift people from poverty or bad places.

(05-31-2020 06:14 PM)brovol Wrote:  The "no" votes on that act were 78% Democrats, and the Democrats filibustered to prevent a vote. The Act passed then, but civil rights for black people were rejected forever before that by Democrats. They only existed because of Republicans. A review of the history on the issue of African American oppression starts with the Democrats, and still continues through Democrat policies, which continue to treat minorities as if they need to be provided for and taken care of by the government. Handouts buy votes, but they don't lift people from poverty or bad places.

I had wanted to mention that in my above post but didn't. Thanks for picking up the slack.

Cue: "The Democrat Party & the Republican Party were the opposite of what they are today."

(05-31-2020 06:19 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-31-2020 06:14 PM)brovol Wrote:  The "no" votes on that act were 78% Democrats, and the Democrats filibustered to prevent a vote. The Act passed then, but civil rights for black people were rejected forever before that by Democrats. They only existed because of Republicans. A review of the history on the issue of African American oppression starts with the Democrats, and still continues through Democrat policies, which continue to treat minorities as if they need to be provided for and taken care of by the government. Handouts buy votes, but they don't lift people from poverty or bad places.

I had wanted to mention that in my above post but didn't. Thanks for picking up the slack.

Cue: "The Democrat Party & the Republican Party were the opposite of what they are today."

I don't think they are opposite at all. Still no respect by the left.

Dear brovol,
If, they are not opposite today, why did almost all Southern Democrats, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, become Republicans?

(05-31-2020 07:02 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear brovol,
If, they are not opposite today, why did almost all Southern Democrats, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, become Republicans?

They didn't. Democrats controlled Southern State Legislatures through 1990's. The split then had more to do with the Right being viewed as more religious and the Left more secular.

It looks to me like they shifted to Republican in presidential elections quickly, but at the state level they've only relatively recently become Republican dominant. Look at list of their governors, Georgia especially (Sonny Perdue in 2002 was the first Republican since the 1800s), but even states like Alabama & Kentucky. The idea these states have been Republican strongholds since the civil rights era (the initial ones, not the ones today) is a myth.

(05-31-2020 07:23 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  It looks to me like they shifted to Republican in presidential elections quickly, but at the state level they've only relatively recently become Republican dominant. Look at list of their governors, Georgia especially (Sonny Perdue in 2002 was the first Republican since the 1800s), but even states like Alabama & Kentucky. The idea these states have been Republican strongholds since the civil rights era (the initial ones, not the ones today) is a myth.

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad.

Dear Boca Rocket,
I was speaking of the federal level, congressmen and senators. I should have been more specific.

(05-31-2020 08:39 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Boca Rocket,
I was speaking of the federal level, congressmen and senators. I should have been more specific.

same thing w/ senators. Look at Georgia & Alabama, for example

Those didn't really change until 2010.