“Equal access” versus “individual freedom”

Zach’s claim that blacks still vote for Democrats “because many Republicans won’t even support the simple justice of laws guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations” is the purest form of nonsense, of course.  There is zero chance that Republicans would take away equal access even if they completely controlled all three branches of the Federal government.  Anyone who actually listened to Republicans and their candidates would know this.

The claim that Republicans threaten these rights, used as a strawman as Zach uses it here, is extraordinarily weak.  However, it is exactly the kind of lie the Left would tell to blacks to persuade them to vote against Republicans.  To the extent such lies are believed, Zach is right that they could cause blacks to vote for Democrats.

But in the real world, not the lying world of the Leftist propaganda, even advocating such a position would be political suicide.  The Republican party has done some dumb things, but it is not that stupid.  We in the Bookwormroom are not so constrained, however.  The topic is actually quite an interesting one, so let me get the ball rolling and see where it goes.

My Grandfather was an FDR/George Wallace Democrat and an unapologetic racist.  He was fond of saying,”If I’m a barber and I don’t want to cut red hair, why should the damn government have the right to tell me I must?”  He felt that to the extent the government forced him to cut red hair against his will it was taking away his freedom.  At some level that sounds reasonable.  But it becomes a bit of a problem for redheads if Granddad is the only barber in town.  It’s a far more difficult problem if we are talking about the only doctor in town.  And it is an unbearable problem if all the medical schools in the country are private and all of them require all students to take an oath not to treat red haired patients.  Eventually, I came in my own mind to accept that some groups should be protected, even at the cost of the denial of a bit of the freedom Granddad so cherished.  At that point, the issue turned to which groups should be protected.  Now, of course, there is a huge list of protected groups — race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc.  Red heads haven’t made the list yet, but I suspect a refusal to cut nappy hair might cause a problem.

Still, I always come back to Granddad’s question.  It is not a matter of “simple justice” as Zach suggests.  It is a matter of a violation of one person’s rights to serve a greater societal good.    It seems to me that we ought to at least acknowledge the violation exists and weigh the violation against the good in deciding how much freedom to violate.  It is easy (for me, anyway) to say that doctors should not be able to discriminate based on race.  It is a lot harder to justify, say, forcing members of a private club to open their doors and associate with groups of people they do not wish to associate with, when nothing more than the association is at stake.

So, what trade-offs are appropriate?  Unrestrained by the need to be elected, what do you folks in the Bookwormroom think the rules should be?  And what do you think the political realities are?  Finally, returning to the original question, assuming I’m right that there is zero chance that Republicans will ever take away equal access (am I right about that?) how do we overcome the Leftist lies, get that message out, and persuade blacks to vote for Republicans?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Well, of course, CM.  Even Zach is not saying that the black abortion rates aren’t higher, though he doesn’t seem very concerned about it.  But black pregnancy rates are also higher.  The question is whether the net effect, even taking into account all those abortions, is that the black birth rate is lower than the white birth rate.  I don’t think it is.  I do suspect, without looking it up, that both blacks and whites are shrinking as a percentage of the American population as a whole.  But, here, we were just talking about birth rates. 

  2. says

    Charles Martel: Almost one-third of the potential live births of a minority population is stopped short by a brutal procedure approved by the political party that ostensibly is its champion. 
     
    That’s a different claim than the two claims above; that blacks are a fading demographic (false), and that the the live birth rate among blacks comes nowhere near that of whites (also false); which you have yet to retract or correct. 
      
    Don Quixote: It is racist (and very sad if true) to suggest, as Zach{riel} does, that the reason that blacks still don’t vote for Republicans is because they just can’t deal with the slightest criticism of Saint King.  Besides, generally speaking, Republicans and the Republican party don’t even talk about MLK.  
     
    It has nothing to do with criticizing King, but rewriting the history to remove the actual cause of the precipitous loss of black support by the Republican Party, as has been done repeatedly on these threads. King is *representative* of the thoughts of many African Americans and others of goodwill. People didn’t follow King blindly. There was great controversy among blacks about the course of the struggle, and more so in the larger society. 
    http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
      
    Don QuixoteEven Zach{riel} is not saying that the black abortion rates aren’t higher, though he doesn’t seem very concerned about it.  
     
    It’s important to making progress in a conversation that people correct their errors when they are pointed out. How many times have we had to post the primary reason why African Americans abandoned the Republican Party in 1964, only to have someone repeat the history of race relations while always skipping over the events that actually address the question? 
     
    Black and white live births are comparable. The difference is the much higher rate of teen pregnancy in the black community, many ending in abortion.  When you actually understand the problem, then you are more likely to be able to find solutions. 

     

  3. Charles Martel says

    DQ, true, but what the Zachs are contending is that blacks are not dooming themselves to increasing political insignificance because their birth rate is higher than whites’. A minority group can out-baby whites by a slight percentage margin all it wants, but when it kills one-third of all the babies it conceives, and its political champion sanctions the deaths, it is committing slow political suicide.

    The Zachs won’t admit that because that would require a straight-out condemnation of Democrats’ indifference to the deaths of black children. And we can’t have that, can we?

  4. Charles Martel says

    “Black and white live births are comparable. The difference is the much higher rate of teen pregnancy in the black community, many ending in abortion.  When you actually understand the problem, then you are more likely to be able to find solutions.”

    What causes the problem?

  5. says

    What’s important isn’t what historians are thinking. What’s important is what Z thinks about MLK juxtaposed against what we think of MLK. Historians are an external element.

    However, we’re not citing his opinion as authoritative, but representative and persuasive within the black community.

     The issue at hand is not what Martin Luther King said or didn’t say.

     The problem with Z’s line is that it’s causally bankrupt, which is to say there’s a train accident waiting to happen if you look at Z’s logic tracks. Supposedly, one person, MLK, led the entire black community to vote Democrat with LBJ. That doesn’t explain why the black community continues to do so or why future black leaders did the same/different.

    That’s just not how politics works. The South would never have voted for Reagan unless the ground work had been done. And it isn’t done by one person.  There’s a lot of institutional and cultural biases that make adopting a new political stance hard. Many Southerners refused to vote REpublican simply because of the Civil War, desegregation, and fear of social ostracization. For some reason, perhaps the whole Jimmy Carter slap in the face, Southerners began to openly speak of voting for a Republican President. The South, especially Georgia the state I am in, was proud to have a Southern born boy like Carter be in the Presidential seat. They named streets after him. But then something bad happened. Carter proved to be a weakling, and even cultural and national pride, won’t make most Americans love or support a weakling. Human nature is too set against that.

    What set the ground work for the shift of blacks to the Democrat party started a long time ago. Long before, and long after, Goldwater’s campaign. That’s where, if you look a little bit harder, Z’s causality timeline crashes down into the mud. These dramatic changes don’t happen over night and they certainly don’t happen because of one Presidential campaign. There’s a lot of work that went on behind the scenes, for decades upon decades, to conduct a political sea change. Ignoring such events and causes, is what makes historians inaccurate and wrong. Z’s not going to get any help from historians when Z’s own judgment is flawed and unreliable.
     

  6. says

    Zach, I haven’t seen anyone argue that King didn’t turn against Goldwater or that this did not have great influence in the black community.  People have argued that blacks should not have taken this turn in favor of LBJ, who was far more racist than Goldwater ever was.  People have tried to deal with the question of why this state of affairs continues to exist half a century later.  People have pointed out 150 years of Republican support for civil rights.  But your persistent focus on MLK’s statement about Goldwater serves no purpose.  It’s important, but it is not the be all and end all after which we are no longer permitted to discuss the matter.  As Y-man points out, it was the culmination of years of drift in that direction in any case. 

  7. Danny Lemieux says

    Did black Americans vote against Goldwater or did they vote for LBJ?

    Most Americans want medical care for older citizens. And so do I.
    Most Americans want fair and stable prices and decent incomes for our farmers. And so do I.
    Most Americans want a decent home in a decent neighborhood for all. And so do I.
    Most Americans want an education for every child to the limit of his ability. And so do I.
    Most Americans want a job for every man who wants to work. And so do I.
    Most Americans want victory in our war against poverty. And so do I.
    Most Americans want continually expanding and growing prosperity. And so do I.
    Like the serpent offering the fruit from the tree, it sounded so sweet.

  8. says

    I was only 12 at the time and just becoming politically aware, but my very clear impression was that people were voting against Goldwater.  We’ve talked about blacks.  The fear among many whites was that electing Goldwater would guarantee World War III.

  9. says

    Charles Martel: A minority group can out-baby whites by a slight percentage margin all it wants, but when it kills one-third of all the babies it conceives, and its political champion sanctions the deaths, it is committing slow political suicide. 
     
    We provided statistics on live births. You should correct your previous misstatements. 
     
    Ymarsakar: Supposedly, one person, MLK, led the entire black community to vote Democrat with LBJ. 
     
    That’s not correct. There were many voices in the Civil Rights Movements, and each person had to make up their own mind. But it was an obvious choice, given the circumstances. Goldwater opposed laws against discrimination in public accommodation, the very thing that had been a central issue for most African Americans. 
    http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/society/freedom_rides/freedom_ride_dbf.htm
     
    YmarsakarThat doesn’t explain why the black community continues to do so or why future black leaders did the same/different.
      
    They continued to do so after 1964 because the Republicans began a campaign of white resentment known as the Southern Strategy. As for the future, the Republican Party has a long way to go. 
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmann-signed-pledge-says-black-children-worse-off-under-obama-than-during-slavery/

    YmarsakarFor some reason, perhaps the whole Jimmy Carter slap in the face, Southerners began to openly speak of voting for a Republican President. 

    You mean white Southerners, of course. Thurmond switched from Democrat to Republican, in 1964, in response to the Civil Rights Act. 
     
    YmarsakarWhat set the ground work for the shift of blacks to the Democrat party started a long time ago. Long before, and long after, Goldwater’s campaign. 

    Yes, as we discussed previously, many African Americans began to switch during the Roosevelt Administration, as exemplified by the Marion Anderson situation. More support came when Truman integrated the military in the face of a split in his own party. Then when Kennedy intervened in King’s arrest in Birmingham, King’s father threw his support behind the Democrat. With Johnson shepherding the Civil Rights Bill through Congress, even at the risk of fracturing the Democratic Party, and with Goldwater walking away from the legislation, the switch was complete. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhd-Q6tBkAQ 
     
    Don Quixote: I haven’t seen anyone argue that King didn’t turn against Goldwater or that this did not have great influence in the black community. 

    No. They ignore it, or denigrate King, or say blacks are ignorant, or were bribed or misled somehow, or simply act astonished that they won’t vote for the party of Lincoln. The change was so dramatic, so complete, so final, it’s clear something happened to cause the fissure. There’s plenty of conservative blacks, but the Republicans are simply tone-deaf. They will argue and argue that it wasn’t their fault. But just the fact that so many Republicans can’t comprehend why they lost the black vote in the first place is telling. 
     
    Danny LemieuxLike the serpent offering the fruit from the tree, it sounded so sweet.

    There were plenty of conservative African Americans, plenty who rejected the idea that the government could provide everything for everyone. We’re not talking a 50% or 60% majority, but nearly every black American. 

  10. says

    No one here has said blacks are ignorant.  You are right that many Republicans are tone-deaf, though.  And we have had great difficulty figuring out what message, consistent with our values, will convince more than a small minority of blacks to vote for Republicans.  Even an exhaustive history like jj’s won’t help.  We need to have a forward looking message, which is what I was hoping we could develop here.  Instead, we’ve spent our time arguing about stuff that happened a half a century ago.  Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, but at some point we do need to come back to the present and figure out what we do now.  

    I firmly believe that, in the long term, conservative solutions are better for America, and for most Americans of all races, than liberal solutions.  But how do I persuade not just blacks, but all groups and individuals who have consistently voted for the liberal solutions over many years, that my belief is correct? 

  11. Danny Lemieux says

    There were plenty of conservative African Americans, plenty who rejected the idea that the government could provide everything for everyone. We’re not talking a 50% or 60% majority, but nearly every black American. 

    Show us the data, Zach. BTW – I’m not arguing that whites are any different, either. I happen to believe that poor people tend to vote for government to give them things. Proportionally, blacks had a higher rate of poverty than whites at that time.

  12. says

    Don Quixote: No one here has said blacks are ignorant.
     
    jj: There is that, then there is the BS view of Civil Rights struggles in this country.  That’s the one Democrats, blacks, the media, and the teachers subscribe to.  It’s chief virtue is complete ignorance of the facts, and adherence to the idea of advancing the narrative.  That the narrative is purest bullshit seems not to bother anyone.
     
    Don QuixoteEven an exhaustive history like jj’s won’t help.  
     
    jj: Why blacks vote for them, I don’t know: there is no rational reason for them to do so.  There has never been a rational reason for them to do so.  Perhaps their leaders are not rational, and are more interested in something other than the truth. 
      
    Don QuixoteI firmly believe that, in the long term, conservative solutions are better for America, and for most Americans of all races, than liberal solutions.  But how do I persuade not just blacks, but all groups and individuals who have consistently voted for the liberal solutions over many years, that my belief is correct? 
     
    You have to understand and respect why people believe what they do, and that requires abandoning strawman versions of their positions. 
     

  13. says

    Zachriel: We’re not talking a 50% or 60% majority, but nearly every black American. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: Show us the data
     
    “But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election {before Obama}.”
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
     

  14. says

    I stand corrected, sort of.  When jj said, “That’s the one Democrats, blacks, the media, and the teachers subscribe to.  It’s chief virtue is complete ignorance of the facts” I took him to be criticizing the folks putting out the false and incomplete history, not saying blacks are ignorant.

    I agree we need to understand why people believe as they do, to help figure out how to persuade them.  I don’t agree that solely focusing on half a century ago gives me a complete understanding, though it certainly helps.      

  15. says

    Whether someone or a group of someones can be classified as “ignorant” is a factual statement. It can be checked. The only people that don’t like it, tend to believe knowledge equals character and virtue, which it doesn’t.

     There’s no reason for Z to start working on black problems now. So DQ’s note of the past vs the importance of the present, is ineffective against the Zs. Z wants to argue history because it’s a good way to stand around doing nothing, while hiding one’s lack of knowledge.

  16. says

    Addendum, I readily understand that for some reason unknown to many, Z believes discrimination is the issue, historically and present case included, that blacks vote Democrat. That ignores many of the under the hood workings of the Democrat party and the inner cities that are inhabited by controlled black and poor, however. Since Z refuses to believe the evil of Planned Parenthood, Acorn, and the other arms of the Democrat party nor does Z consider the fact of the Leftist alliance being a reality, makes Z specially susceptible to the condition of what can be called “lack of knowledge”.

    So the issue isn’t discrimination, on or off, Democrat or Republican. The problem is Z’s inability to grasp things that he finds too uncomfortable to consider and analyze. Solve that problem, and the rest follows naturally. 

  17. jj says

    You’re correct, Don.  Although – in the light of what happened in the Senate, MLK turned out to be pretty ignorant going with LBJ, didn’t he?  After a lifetime of showing absolutely no interest and doing absolutely nothing, LBJ couldn’t convince his old Senate cronies that this time he was serious, and so didn’t even hold his own party, did he?  Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – not democrats.
     
    King had to know the shit-kickers would stick together, too – he wasn’t that dumb.  So he was counting on Dirksen and the Republicans to be bigger than that – but he was taking a chance.  Spitting in the eye of the Republican candidate, when you knew – or should have known – you were about to require their support because you weren’t going to get much from the party of the guy you did endorse – pretty ballsy!  King was requiring – expecting – Dirksen to be bigger than he was himself – and Dirksen came through.
     
    But nobody has come close to answering the question: Why did King go for the life-long racist, who’s pals were all life-long racists, whom – if he had any nous – he had to know were not going to be on his side in this one?  The Republicans delivered the goods, not the Democrats – and who didn’t know that would happen?  I’m a little older than you, Don – nobody, at the time, really had any doubts at all about which way the Republicans would come down.  (Nor did anyone have any real doubts about where the Democrats would be, either – though the scope of their opposition, the filibustering, the viciousness that’s mostly forgotten, etc. I think did surprise a lot of people.)
     
    And so I wonder: with absolutely no historical reason for it, and with absolutely no current (at the time) political atmospherics or justification in favor of it – why go for LBJ?  No matter how much you dislike Goldwater, he’s one guy, and the Republican Senate who gave us the 1964 and 1965 Acts cold certainly handle him.  (And did.)  What was King thinking?  Why do something that counter to reason?  (Why do something that severely counter to his personal experience with a Democrat Department of Justice?)  It made no sense, and it continues to make no sense.  And so I posit there was something else going on, about which we simply do not know.

  18. says

    The things the Democrats have been doing in the shadows for all of American history, would stagger the imagination of anyone. Currently, most people cannot even imagine the extent of what the Democrats have done. They can’t even imagine it and then declare it false. Their minds literally cannot encompass the scale of Democrat perfidy.

     

  19. Danny Lemieux says

    Nice sideways dodge, Zach:

    Zach (responding to post that black Americans may have voted FOR LBJ based on his promises:

    “There were plenty of conservative African Americans, plenty who rejected the idea that the government could provide everything for everyone. We’re not talking a 50% or 60% majority, but nearly every black American. ”

    Danny Lemieux’s response: Show us the data?

    Zach’s response: 

    “But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election {before Obama}.”

     Danny’s response: And?

  20. jj says

    And again, Johnson may have pushed until his head exploded, without Dirksen and the Republicans he went nowhere. And I would also reiterate – actual history’s a problem for liberals, isn’t it? – the “landmark” 1964 legislation outlawing segregation in public places had already been done by Republicans – in 1875.  Dirksen, who knew something about history, probably wasn’t nearly as impressed by the “landmark” label as some others have been.  If there was a “landmark,” it would have been the Republican legislation that did the exact same thing 89 years earlier.  (With, just like 1964, most Democrats voting “nay.”)

  21. says

    Ymarsakar: Z believes discrimination is the issue, historically and present case included, that blacks vote Democrat.

    The history of discrimination and the struggle against discrimination are important parts of black culture, and certainly informs the politics. 
     
    jj: MLK turned out to be pretty ignorant going with LBJ, didn’t he? 

    King was very suspicious of Johnson, but Johnson’s actions convinced King of their mutual commitment to a just society and the opportunity they were given to bring it to fruition. This is borne out by their correspondence, taped conversations, and FBI records. 
     
    jj: LBJ couldn’t convince his old Senate cronies that this time he was serious, and so didn’t even hold his own party, did he?  Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – not democrats.
     
    More Senate Democrats (46) voted for the bill than Senate Republicans (27). 
      
    jj: Why did King go for the life-long racist, who’s pals were all life-long racists, whom – if he had any nous – he had to know were not going to be on his side in this one?  

    That you continue to ignore the answer illustrates the myopia the Republican Party has regarding the black community. 
     
    jj: No matter how much you dislike Goldwater, he’s one guy, and the Republican Senate who gave us the 1964 and 1965 Acts cold certainly handle him.

    Recall that Republicans were a minority in both legislative chambers at the time. They couldn’t deliver a warm bucket of spit. 
     

  22. Charles Martel says

    Zach wows us again with one of his spot-on uses of colorful American vernacular!

    http://www.wherezachgoestodownloadsecond-handarguments.com

    Actually, nobody can deliver a warm bucket of spit. Heat from spit is lost almost as soon as expectoration occurs, and the quantity necessary to fill a bucket (approx. 5 gallons) takes much spit from many donors. Unless artiifical means of keeping the spit warm are applied, no political party can deliver a bucket of warm spit (unless it uses stimulus money to heat the spit with solar or wind power).

  23. jj says

    Oh, so that must be a persistent misprint in the Congressional Record – and those senators who spent 57 days filibustering he bill really weren’t democrats.  I see.  I guess LBJ was lying when he publicly thanked Dirksen for getting it done for him.
     
    You see – follow this carefully – 46 does not constitute a “majority.”  (An arcane word, meaning “more than half.”  In those days it needed to be “more than two-thirds” in the Senate.)  The majority came when a larger proportion of republicans voted for the bill – as everyone at the time knew they would.  (A century of history had made that clear.)    
     
    I do not ignore the answer for why King did what he did – I have yet to see an answer.  I hear a lot of nonsense, but not an answer.  The fact is, you don’t know why King did what he did, either.  Animus for Goldwater, who, as DQ points out was not remotely the racist Johnson was, doesn’t explain it.  Take comfort, though, you’re not alone: most historians are also at something of a loss to explain King’s action.  All kinds of theories, no actual answer.  And whatever King’s reasons for going with LBJ were, they do not erase or alter a single one of the actions of the previous century, during which time the democrats repeatedly proved they were not the friends of American black aspirations.

  24. says

    jj: 46 does not constitute a “majority.”

    That’s right, which is why we didn’t claim that the Democrats “passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964″ or that the Democrats “gave us the 1964 and 1965 Acts,” which you did regarding the Republicans. 
     
    jj(An arcane word, meaning “more than half.”  In those days it needed to be “more than two-thirds” in the Senate.)
     
    That’s right. Southern Democrats had bottled up or watered down Civil Rights legislation for generations. In 1964, 44 Democratic and 27 Republican Senators finally achieved cloture in the Senate and forced a vote. 
     
    jjThe majority came when a larger proportion of republicans voted for the bill – as everyone at the time knew they would. 

     But Republicans were not a majority, much less a supermajority. It required bipartisan support. 
     
    jjI do not ignore the answer for why King did what he did – I have yet to see an answer.  

    He said why. 

    “On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”
    The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, ed., Clayborne Carson (Time Warner, 1998)

    Your own lack of comprehension as to why African Americans abandoned the Republican Party only further illuminates why there remains such a disconnect between Republicans and African Americans (and most other minorities). 
     
    jj: I hear a lot of nonsense, but not an answer.  

    You can call King’s words nonsense, but his views were shared by a large majority of the black community.
     

  25. says

    Here’s another view on individual freedom. http artofmanliness.com/2011/07/17/the-law-of-sacrifice/

    “‘He either fears his fate too much,
        Or his desert is small,
    Who fears to put it to the touch,
        And win or lose it all.’ – Montrose’s Toast

    Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.

    -Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) Serenity

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

    http:// http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
     

     Now apply this to the situation the poor and the disenfranchised blacks are in and you can see that they have been denied more than is apparent if you listen to the Left.

  26. says

    Ymarsakar: Now apply this to the situation the poor and the disenfranchised blacks are in and you can see that they have been denied more than is apparent if you listen to the Left.

    Right. Because Africans Americans and “white persons of goodwill” just sat in their easy chairs grumbling, never did anything, nor took any personal risks to effect change. 
     
    colonel6.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/selma27.jpg
    blogs.clarionledger.com/jmitchell/files/2010/12/dr-martin-luther-king.jpg 
    blog.art21.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/johnlewis.jpg
    http://www.glogster.com/media/5/34/29/84/34298496.jpg 

  27. says

    Oh they did something all right. It was a war between the good and the evil. The evil did things to make it worse while the good did things to make it better. What’s so complicated you can’t understand, Z?

Leave a Reply