ungrateful Condi vents at USA: you've got a "birth defect"

[Angela Harlem]

I think there is a distinct difference between Condi's presentation and the Rev.

He unfortunately in my opinion has a view of history not founded in fact or reality. And that makes him lose credibility with me. In his case, I would say yes, he is UNGRATEFUL. America has not nor will she ever be perfect. Yet, America is responsible for many of the things the good Rev. has been afforded.

I think in looking at Condi's approach, she is dead on. It does not appear to me that she has taken an approach that sugar coats the history, nor does she present it in a mannet that I would call her UNGRATEFUL. She presents a fact, that America has been dealing with the after effects of Slavery to this day. It was a birthdefect that the founding fathers were not capable of dealing with.

Not sure with the tone of the original post, or why this has to be a republican/democrat debate.

You may not like the messenger - but that does not negate the message.

In the reverands case - I am not sure I like the messanger because of the message.

 

[Irvine511]

everyone does realize that this thread is really about spin?

that Wright, the Obamas, and Condi (and MLK and Powell) are all talking about the same thing, the only thing that differs is presentation. they're all saying that black people in the US have been screwed over since they got here, and it continues to this day, and simply because they are all immensely successful doesn't mean that there isn't racism, that they themselves didn't have to overcome obstacles that white people don't face, and that America has to deal with it's past.

 

[martha]

Apparently the message is easier to hear when it's toned down and delivered by a pretty accomplice.

 

[melon]

we call those core conservative principles.

dbs

They also happened to be at the core of the Civil Rights Movement.

Psst...let me let you all in on a secret. The left and the right have more in common than they'd like to believe.

 

[diamond]

Psst...let me let you all in on a secret. The left and the right have more in common than they'd like to believe.

Agreed; and I know that more Republicans than Democrats in that time period supported the Civil Rights Movement and were it not for Republicans it would not have passed -much to the chagrin and ignorance of the majority of the posters here.


Word-

dbs

 

[BVS]

-much to the chagrin and ignorance of the majority of the posters here.

You may want to try and back up your blanket condemnations every once in awhile.

 

[diamond]

Don't need to, prove me wrong if you wish.

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

Don't need to, prove me wrong if you wish.

dbs

and why do you think so many of these Southern Democrats -- i.e., Dixiecrats -- defected to the Republican Party *after* the Civil Rights Act was passed?

 

[diamond]

and why do you think so many of these Southern Democrats -- i.e., Dixiecrats -- defected to the Republican Party *after* the Civil Rights Act was passed?

I've heard of this extrapolation before, it's tired and weak.

Republicans like Charleton Heston ( who Micheal Moore attempts to sabotage in one his recent tabloid attempts of theater) and George Romney fought the good fight back in the day and these are the Republicans that I align myself with along with the majority of the GOP today.

I promise you there are more racists Democrats who enjoy Jerry Springer than racists GOP.

out-

dbs

 

[Irvine511]

I've heard of this extrapolation before, it's tired and weak.

well, no, it's accurate, but since history goes against what you wish were true, go right ahead and continue to believe that the reason why the south isn't overwhelmingly republican to this day is exactly due to the realignment after the Civil Rights Act.

as LBJ said, of the Democrats, "we have just lost the south for a generation."

how right he was.

i'm sorry, i know it's hard to be wrong, but no judgments or hard feelings, k?

 

[deep]

Civil Rights Act of 1964
By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

The Facts are these
if you were serving in the congress in 1964 and had an opportunity to vote on the Civil Rights Act

Republicans were more likely to vote against it than Democrats.

 

[Irvine511]

The Facts are these
if you were serving in the congress in 1964 and had an opportunity to vote on the Civil Rights Act

Republicans were more likely to vote against it than Democrats.

what's important,

is that Mitt Romney marched with MLK

everything else is just spin

 

[diamond]

Republicans were more likely to vote against it than Democrats.

Without the help of those Republicans who in my view represent the core principles of Republicanism today ie civil rights for all regardless of color-it wouldn't have passed, was my point.

That said where was one of the main mouth pieces of contemporary Democrat philosophies of today, Senator Robert Byrd on this issue-a Hillary supporter like you; not a Barrack supporter like you, and present day Democrat, unlike you who is a RINO-Republican IN Name Only?

Owned.

 

[diamond]

what's important,

is that Mitt Romney marched with MLK

everything else is just spin

let's try and keep our next VP outta this.
He's at the salon right now.


dbs

 

[yolland]

Psst...let me let you all in on a secret. The left and the right have more in common than they'd like to believe.

My point was that Condi Rice was referring to the Civil Rights Movement, not to African-Americans of some particular party affiliation.

 

[BVS]

Don't need to, prove me wrong if you wish.

dbs

If you choose to hide behind this kind of "logic" so be it, but I'll choose to live in the real world.

 

[diamond]

Nice avatar

 

[Diemen]

Without the help of those Republicans who in my view represent the core principles of Republicanism today ie civil rights for all regardless of color-it wouldn't have passed, was my point.

Do you usually try to get a point across by lying and being deceitful?

Originally posted by diamond
and I know that more Republicans than Democrats in that time period supported the Civil Rights Movement and were it not for Republicans it would not have passed -much to the chagrin and ignorance of the majority of the posters here.

You've been proven wrong on the first part. The northern Republicans certainly helped, but in both the north and south Democrats had a higher percentage voting for it.

 

[yolland]

For either national party to suggest that it was somehow the driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement's accomplishments would be laughable--primary credit goes to the thousands of "ordinary" citizens, the overwhelming majority of them African-American, who spent more than a decade risking their lives mounting sit-ins, boycotts, marches and voter registration drives to call attention to injustices and galvanize public awareness. Washington had had decades' worth of opportunities, under variously affiliated administrations and Congresses, to act decisively to address de jure racial discrimination in the South and de facto racial discrimination in the North, had that actually been considered a "core principles" priority, which it wasn't.

 

[BVS]

For either national party to suggest that it was somehow the driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement's accomplishments would be laughable--primary credit goes to the thousands of "ordinary" citizens, the overwhelming majority of them African-American, who spent more than a decade risking their lives mounting sit-ins, boycotts, marches and voter registration drives to call attention to injustices and galvanize public awareness. Washington had had decades' worth of opportunities, under variously affiliated administrations and Congresses, to act decisively to address de jure racial discrimination in the South and de facto racial discrimination in the North, had that actually been considered a "core principles" priority, which it wasn't.

Exactly.

 

[diamond]

For either national party to suggest that it was somehow the driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement's accomplishments would be laughable--primary credit goes to the thousands of "ordinary" citizens, the overwhelming majority of them African-American, who spent more than a decade risking their lives mounting sit-ins, boycotts, marches and voter registration drives to call attention to injustices and galvanize public awareness. Washington had had decades' worth of opportunities, under variously affiliated administrations and Congresses, to act decisively to address de jure racial discrimination in the South and de facto racial discrimination in the North, had that actually been considered a "core principles" priority, which it wasn't.

If memory serves me correctly, I do believe a Republican President helped end slavery and set the movement for women's rights, civil rights and human rights in motion.

But I could be all wet, as I'm only an unassuming fellow named diamond in a place called vertiference.

 

[yolland]

Yes, Lincoln was all told a great leader. But wouldn't we all love to cite some universally admired figure and be able to claim them as the epitome of what our party/country/religion/etc. "really" stands for. Unfortunately, historical reality is a lot messier than that.

 

[Dreadsox]

everyone does realize that this thread is really about spin?

that Wright, the Obamas, and Condi (and MLK and Powell) are all talking about the same thing, the only thing that differs is presentation. they're all saying that black people in the US have been screwed over since they got here, and it continues to this day, and simply because they are all immensely successful doesn't mean that there isn't racism, that they themselves didn't have to overcome obstacles that white people don't face, and that America has to deal with it's past.

I beg to differ.

Wrigh's comments were more than spin and more than about racism. There is a huge distortion in his presentation that is troublesome.

It has nothing to do with the packaging.

Obama and Rice were dead on in their presentation. I can respect them for it.

Wright's approach leads and stokes the fires of racism and in my opinion puts us further back from common ground.

 

[diamond]

Regardless, our country needs to tip our hat to Lincoln, the same way Bongo tips his hat to GW, wouldn't you say-at the very least.

Lincoln could of done nothing.

dbs

 

[Diemen]

Does anyone in this country not tip their hat to Lincoln for his role in ending slavery?

 

[diamond]

Does anyone in this country not tip their hat to Lincoln for his role in ending slavery?

Most do, however some choose to find fault with him by attempting to question his "real motives" thereby making me question their character or motives.

Then you have the crowd who claims Lincoln was probably gay based on a few letters being taken out of context.

Tell you what diemen 150 years from now a lot ppl could lay claim that I was a gay american based on some of my more colorful posts being taken out of context here on Interland.

dbs

 

[yolland]

Why does it matter what Lincoln's sexual orientation was? At worst, attempts based on scant evidence to 'claim' or 'reclaim' some historical figure for some particular sexual orientation category are silly. At worst. People who assume such attempts to be 'smears' reveal more about themselves than the people they're criticizing.

What's your evidence that "most" find fault with Lincoln by questioning his "real motives"?

 

[Diemen]

Well, you certainly do seem to have a thing for Irvine...

As to your Lincoln statement, no one in this thread is not tipping their hat to Lincoln, yet you made that statement as if it was needed. Which isn't that significant, yeah, but your laughable tie-in with Bush is just plain lazy and intellectually dishonest. The vast majority of people have given and do give credit to Lincoln where credit is due. It's not as if there's a vast segment of the population that doesn't admit he did a good thing there.

And this is before even bringing up the differences in style, substance, character, integrity, vision, and capability between the two. What they do share is that they are both Republican presidents, that's about as much similarity as they have. And even in that similarity, the Republican party of Lincoln's time and the Republican party of today are vastly different things.

 

[diamond]

What's your evidence that "most" find fault with Lincoln by questioning his "real motives"?

I hear racists claim today that Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves etc and he had ulterior motives yadie, yadie I usually tone out and walk away.

I also do this when some morons say Clinton shouldn't had helped out Bosnia because they were mostly Muslim and Clinton had ulterior motives blah blah, I walk from those that spout this too.

dbs

 

[Diemen]

What's your evidence that "most" find fault with Lincoln by questioning his "real motives"?

To be fair to diamond, he did say "some" and not most.