Moochelle at her divisive best at Tuskeegee

2seaoat wrote:You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

Not at all.....you missed that there is no verifiable source for the Johnson quote except an unauthorized biography which like the Hersh article is just make some chit up....which is why racist publication continue to play the same for those who think there is a point.......checker players should stick with checkers.

VectorMan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

Not at all.....you missed that there is no verifiable source for the Johnson quote except an unauthorized biography which like the Hersh article is just make some chit up....which is why racist publication continue to play the same for those who think there is a point.......checker players should stick with checkers.

No sir. After reading whatever that is you typed above, I'm convinced you missed the point.

That being said. The speech Michelle gave at Tuskegee did nothing but create even more racial division. She is about as fake as they come. As are most liberals from my experience.

othershoe1030 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:You missed the point. I'm not surprised.

Not at all.....you missed that there is no verifiable source for the Johnson quote except an unauthorized biography which like the Hersh article is just make some chit up....which is why racist publication continue to play the same for those who think there is a point.......checker players should stick with checkers.

No sir. After reading whatever that is you typed above, I'm convinced you missed the point.

That being said. The speech Michelle gave at Tuskegee did nothing but create even more racial division. She is about as fake as they come. As are most liberals from my experience.

In her speech she recalls achievements and obstacles overcome by black Americans and encourages the graduates to remember those struggles. She tells them there will be bumpy times ahead but to not give up, be true to yourself.

Different people hear different things in her talk. I find nothing but encouragement and support from her to the graduates. She congratulates them for their hard work and perseverance in attaining their degrees, acknowledges sacrifices made by their families to bring them to this day.

Wow, that is really divisive, yup, you betcha.

VectorMan wrote:Racist President Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

Every race has practiced slavery at one point or another. Just depends on how far you want to go back. I'm sure liberals know exactly when the cut off date is. Since they know what is best for everyone. LOL

othershoe1030 wrote:If a thread such as this is started about a speech given by a public figure I think it is only reasonable to post a link to the full speech. The MSM has largely focused on a minute or so of the remarks but here is a full length look at what I thought was a very inspiring talk to a graduating class from a university that has significant meaning for black Americans.

Don't miss the references to students building their campus with bricks they made themselves or reminders about the history of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUKwl5NFgE

Sal wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If a thread such as this is started about a speech given by a public figure I think it is only reasonable to post a link to the full speech. The MSM has largely focused on a minute or so of the remarks but here is a full length look at what I thought was a very inspiring talk to a graduating class from a university that has significant meaning for black Americans.

Don't miss the references to students building their campus with bricks they made themselves or reminders about the history of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUKwl5NFgE

Thanks for the context.

I also found the speech to be inspiring and thoughtful.

It is a joy to have a First Lady with such eloquence and grace.

That she gets under the wingnutz' skins is but a bonus.

Sal wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If a thread such as this is started about a speech given by a public figure I think it is only reasonable to post a link to the full speech. The MSM has largely focused on a minute or so of the remarks but here is a full length look at what I thought was a very inspiring talk to a graduating class from a university that has significant meaning for black Americans.

Don't miss the references to students building their campus with bricks they made themselves or reminders about the history of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUKwl5NFgE

Thanks for the context.

I also found the speech to be inspiring and thoughtful.

It is a joy to have a First Lady with such eloquence and grace.

That she gets under the wingnutz' skins is but a bonus.

KarlRove wrote:

Sal wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:If a thread such as this is started about a speech given by a public figure I think it is only reasonable to post a link to the full speech. The MSM has largely focused on a minute or so of the remarks but here is a full length look at what I thought was a very inspiring talk to a graduating class from a university that has significant meaning for black Americans.

Don't miss the references to students building their campus with bricks they made themselves or reminders about the history of the famous Tuskegee Airmen, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUKwl5NFgE

Thanks for the context.

I also found the speech to be inspiring and thoughtful.

It is a joy to have a First Lady with such eloquence and grace.

That she gets under the wingnutz' skins is but a bonus.

So you are OK with the FLOTUS being a racist?

Sal wrote:The right wing makes a habit of changing the definitions of terms.

It is a clumsy and dishonest attempt to deflect the debate.

In this way they can pretend that any acknowledgement of race is "racism".

It's juvenile and outrageous, but entirely consistent with their characters.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:if GOVERNMENT had not interfered and wrote laws prohibiting integration, there would be far less than there is even today.

I am simply stunned that you have a professional license.  You do realize you are posting jibberish.

Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional?

As you well know in 1954, 60+ years ago that concept was struck down.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1]

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Louisiana Justice Edward Douglass White was one of the majority: he was a member of the New Orleans Pickwick Club and the Crescent City White League, the latter a paramilitary organization that had supported white supremacy with violence through the 1870s to suppress black voting and regain political power by white property owners.[2]

"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[3]

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Why did you post this statement? "Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional"?

Seems misleading to some readers here who may think you meant that "separate but equal" was a currently held position, which it is not. Sometimes being "obvious" is necessary on this forum.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:There has been a systemic bias in our culture that cannot be denied by anyone who can objectively look at history. Here is just one very specific example.


MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY 5/9/15
Baltimore and US history of housing segregation
More than 100 years of housing policy -- from segregation laws to restrictive covenants to urban renewal to the subprime mortgage crisis -- have created a Baltimore that is segregated and deeply unequal to this day. MHP and her guests discuss. Duration: 7:57

http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/baltimore-and-us-history-of-housing-segregation-442619459831

Your comments about housing policy is amusing.  Those laws were enacted by Democrats, the KKK started as a radical wing of Democrats.  My opinion has always been that if GOVERNMENT had not interfered and wrote laws prohibiting integration, there would be far less than there is even today.

What did the sub-prime mortgage crisis have to do with racism?

Please show us where I mentioned political parties in this post. I said it was a systemic characteristic of our entire culture.

Of course Democrats don't want to bring political party into the discussion because they are at fault.

Whenever Progressives/Democrats get caught in an undeniable problem they have caused, then it isn't THEM, IT IS OUR ENTIRE CULTURE.  That's a lie but when that's all you have, you go with it, right?

Was it not Lyndon Johnson, a democratic president. who shepherded the civil rights voting act during his administration?  

And indeed, it is bizarre how the two dominant political parties of this country have reversed their original positions on racism.  Today the democrats are the champions of racial equality, while their racist opponents do all they can to limit and/or deny the voting rights of Black America.

Even more bizarre, today's all white, all Christian KKK is virtually all Republican!  

Reality!

VectorMan wrote:Racist President Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

Every race has practiced slavery at one point or another. Just depends on how far you want to go back. I'm sure liberals know exactly when the cut off date is. Since they know what is best for everyone. LOL

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:if GOVERNMENT had not interfered and wrote laws prohibiting integration, there would be far less than there is even today.

I am simply stunned that you have a professional license.  You do realize you are posting jibberish.

Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional?

As you well know in 1954, 60+ years ago that concept was struck down.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1]

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Louisiana Justice Edward Douglass White was one of the majority: he was a member of the New Orleans Pickwick Club and the Crescent City White League, the latter a paramilitary organization that had supported white supremacy with violence through the 1870s to suppress black voting and regain political power by white property owners.[2]

"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[3]

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Why did you post this statement? "Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional"?

Seems misleading to some readers here who may think you meant that "separate but equal" was a currently held position, which it is not. Sometimes being "obvious" is necessary on this forum.

How could someone, other than Progressives, be mislead into believing "separate but equal" is the current position?  Is it the separate water fountains found everywhere?  How about the separate hotels?

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:if GOVERNMENT had not interfered and wrote laws prohibiting integration, there would be far less than there is even today.

I am simply stunned that you have a professional license.  You do realize you are posting jibberish.

Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional?

As you well know in 1954, 60+ years ago that concept was struck down.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".[1]

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Louisiana Justice Edward Douglass White was one of the majority: he was a member of the New Orleans Pickwick Club and the Crescent City White League, the latter a paramilitary organization that had supported white supremacy with violence through the 1870s to suppress black voting and regain political power by white property owners.[2]

"Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.[3]

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy's arrest in an act of civil disobedience in order to challenge Louisiana's segregation law, stated, "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Why did you post this statement? "Was it not the Supreme Court who ruled that SEPARATE BUT EQUAL laws were perfectly fine and constitutional"?

Seems misleading to some readers here who may think you meant that "separate but equal" was a currently held position, which it is not. Sometimes being "obvious" is necessary on this forum.

How could someone, other than Progressives, be mislead into believing "separate but equal" is the current position?  Is it the separate water fountains found everywhere?  How about the separate hotels?

You are the one who first posted the nonsense about separate but equal and I am still trying to figure out why. Why? Why? What was the point?

othershoe1030 wrote:If any mention of race is racism then it kind of makes it tough to talk about it doesn't it?

othershoe1030 wrote:

   
“"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
rhcp490
Alice in Wonderland quotes

Sal wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

   
“"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
rhcp490
Alice in Wonderland quotes

As Boards says, "when you can't compete in the arena of ideas and policies ..."

Frank Luntz is the poster boy for the 21st Century Repuke debate club.

othershoe1030 wrote:My point is that had GOVERNMENT NOT established laws segregating the races, we would be even further ahead than we are today.

I see what your expressing, the opinion but of course you know there were plenty of laws segregating the races, government laws, if you will, so in that case the statement makes no sense.

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
rhcp490
Alice in Wonderland quotes

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:My point is that had GOVERNMENT NOT established laws segregating the races, we would be even further ahead than we are today.

I see what your expressing, the opinion but of course you know there were plenty of laws segregating the races, government laws, if you will, so in that case the statement makes no sense.

"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
rhcp490
Alice in Wonderland quotes

My bad, I left out a key word when typing the sentence.  That word was NOT.  I hope that clarifies it for you.