FBI Director warns on White Supremacy

It is but one example of the hypocrisy of Democrats and a glaring example which disproves the notion that they were expelled.

As for Democrat policies, I can show examples of that as well.

 

You're full of it. All you have is the funeral of a guy who repudiated the racism of his earlier life.

Here's part of the history you're choosing to ignore...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Freedom_Democratic_Party​

I stand by every word of this: "The real history is they went through an internal convulsion over a couple of decades where they isolated and ultimately excluded white racists. Unfortunately, they brought onboard a number of black racists--Al Sharpton, for example--who detract from an effort to end white racism in America."

 

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

These guys are now shamelessly gaslighting us with their phony history. Sometimes I feel like we're back in the 1950s.

 

And, as the article says, there is no problem.

 

Another good example of Democrats hypocrisy. You should read the entir Wiki article if you are uninformed about the MFDP. LBJ, who weeks earlier had signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, kicked the all black MDFP out of his DNC nominating convention.

 

Because truth hurts?

 

I'm not sure why you are resorting to straw men or why you insist on misidentifying people as Democrats.

 

I'm glad y'all are praising Sen Byrd. It is demonstrative of Democrat hypocrisy.

 

I'm sorry if you think it isn't praiseworthy to abandon white supremacism and take a stand against it and for civil rights, but it is. You don't have to be a Dem to understand that.

 

Wrong. It is accepted as ONE measure of intelligence, and it's a reasonable measure of the impact of poor nutrition of the development of children's brains.

You're trying to sweep away the impact on poor children of relatively worse nutrition. Black children suffer more than white children from poverty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3607807/​

Your question is largely irrelevant since one person can be an exception to the rule. I can't imagine what you're trying to prove. All you're managing is to look suspiciously like someone who is trying to ignore the impact of racism.

I keep bringing up black racism because it does impact white people even though some black and their handwringing white supporters pretend it doesn't. I know it does because I lived it as a white kid in a school with far more black and Latinos than whites.

 

The OP was nothing more than a tantrump. If racism/extremism was as big as people claim, they wouldn't have to do a hard sell, like the article does. If my argument is weak, please tell us what people of color cannot accomplish due to racism/extremism?

 

The. Article. Is. Not. About. Racism. Being. Prevalent. In. Society. It. Is. About. The. Rise. In. White. Nationalist. Extremist. Attacks. I seriously don't know how I can make it any simpler. I don't know what about it you aren't understanding. Also, you can't even make up your mind about what racism is; one minute it is racism to make blanket judgements about a group of people (you seriously going to say that isn't prevalent? Really?) and the next you change your mind and it is only racism if something becomes impossible for an an entire race. Which is it?

This IS your weak argument. Restating it doesn't magically make it a strong argument now.

 

I'm glad you are admitting the need for Democrats to abandon white supremacy and finally stand for Civil Rights. Republicans on the other hand, never had to as we've always been for Civil Rights.

Now if we can only get Democrats to pay reparations to blacks.

It would also be nice if they would actually stop supporting segregation, slavery and discrimination.

 

Reading comprehension fail.

Not in the south.

Purely conspiratorial fantasy with no grounding in reality.

 

Perhaps you should share your definition of racism.

 

What kind of Orwellian doublespeak nightmare is this ?

Pete Buttigieg Faces Scrutiny Over ‘All Lives Matter’ Remark in 2015

So what is being "Scrutinized" ? Do "all lives" not matter ? or Rule of Law Principles such as "Equal Justice Under the Law" ?

Pete is being scrutinized because although he spoke the Truth, this obvious truth happens to conflict with the narrative being peddled by the PC crowd .. and das ist verbotten !!

Welcome the world where speaking the Truth is Falsehood.

 

I'm not the one making claims about the prevalence of racism and using two different definitions to do so. I'd go with something like M-W's "racial prejudice or discrimination" personally, but I'm not the one making the claims.

 

Yes, especially in the South. The KKK was the armed forces of the Democrats and the Jim Crow Laws and segregation their policies. The Civil War was Republican versus Democrat.

 

Right, but if you're critical of another poster's definition it suggests you should supply your own. I reckon the term is far overused and has come to mean nothing.

 

I've known several KKK members and those of similar philosophy. None of them were Democrats or even pro-Democrat in any way. White supremacists showed up in droves to the Unite the Right rally, not to Democrat rallies. Things changed in the South after the Civil Rights era. The Republican and Democrat parties of today have little to nothing to do with those of the Civil War. I've known several Confederate apologists in my life, including many in the forums, and they've all been conservatives. Sorry, but this just doesn't fly. That's not to say that most Republicans are white supremacists, just that most white supremacists are Republicans or otherwise on the Right. Dems/the left doesn't have their hands clean, but there isn't much of a white supremacist problem on the Dem side compared to the Republican side of the aisle.

 

It isn't his definition I'm critical of; it is the mutually exclusive definitions he was offering to take different sides on different issues.

 

I have no idea who these modern KKK members are or which party they belong to but feel certain that if they tried to remove any civil rights today it would more likely be the Republicans who moved against it.

 

For all of their flaws, I haven't seen any Dems move to retire any civil rights laws. I have seen it among some Republicans.

 

I think the recent example of 'Russiagate' showed some contempt of innocent until proven guilty and due process, which is echoed on this thread.

There are many concerned about the growing number of 'hate crimes'. but how many convictions have their been? It seems to me that Democrats think the worst of other people but are seldom introspective.