Jump to content

The Florida STOP WOKE ACT


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

Yes, you seem to be an endless supply of garbage links for garbage ideas to ranging from poorly reasoned to (most often) outright and obviously false. 

If you cannot handle the truth, just say you can't. It's not like I'm linking to  CNN, PMSNBC, or THE VIEW. I give reliable sources that tell the truth.

Remember that this conversation started with you absurdly claiming that Rosa Parks was a conservative/Republican. Lol

Actually, you are a LIAR. My exact words (when describing the RACIST content that the Florida AntiWoke Act was banning from public schools)

Conservatives have ALWAYS sounded like MLK. In fact MLK was a Republican.

A little bit of history: It was uber liberal Bobby Kennedy who ordered the wiretaps on Dr. King's phone during that time period. The Democrats have always been the party of racist.

Republicans?  Ask Rosa Parks.

I then showed a photo of Rosa Parks, posiing Muhammad Ali and the LAST LEGALLY ELECTED President in the United States, Donald Trump.

In the biography links about Parks, I didn't find any party affiliation. When I asked if she was a Republican or Democrat I got two answers in that search. One was that she was a Democrat and a liberal. The other was that because the Democrats at the time were the party of Jim Crow and segregation, she was a Republican.

Bottom line, the Democrats back then (AS WELL AS TODAY) were racists, bigots and segregationists.  Over the period of time I've been here, I've provided PLENTY of credible links to prove that fact.

I wonder why no one can take you seriously? Physician, heal thyself.

Actually intelligent, educated people take me quite seriously. It's the uneducated goose steppers who have such a problem losing arguments to me, WHICH THEY DO ALL THE TIME.

I don't need to heal myself. I'm right and you're wrong.

You need to GROW UP, child.

 

 

 

Lol. WTF could you*possibly* think you are right about? Rosa Parks working with Conyers but being a secret Republican, because you read something on Pinterest? You're a joke.

Also no evidence that MLK was Republican. It's possible he was at some point, being at the historical polarity swap of the parties around race, but certainly he was all-in on LBJ. That is on record. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

Also no evidence that MLK was Republican. It's possible he was at some point, being at the historical polarity swap of the parties around race, but certainly he was all-in on LBJ. That is on record. 

 

And what did Johnson's "Great Society" create?

The business of collecting welfare. The dependence of minorities on government. 

Good work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And what did Johnson's "Great Society" create?

The business of collecting welfare. The dependence of minorities on government. 

Good work...

That's pure crap. Nobody is forced into dependency. The social safety net simply catches people when they fall. Some of them fall constantly, but one of the beautiful things about America is that there is help available for even the the least successful among us.

People who lack empathy never seem to understand why that's a virtue, but there's help for those selfish souls when they need it as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose so but why wouldn't they want to provide more help?  Like, I mean, enough?

That's a great question. I think selfishness and jealously is the root cause. Conservative America has a hard enough time coming to terms with feeding hungry children. God forbid we provide 8 months of childcare to help the single mom get a cybersecurity certificate so that she can break the cycle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's pure crap. Nobody is forced into dependency. The social safety net simply catches people when they fall. Some of them fall constantly, but one of the beautiful things about America is that there is help available for even the the least successful among us.

People who lack empathy never seem to understand why that's a virtue, but there's help for those selfish souls when they need it as well.

 

And the results...speak for themselves. 

Did you really think the Democrats changed their spots? You've been had...yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. WTF could you*possibly* think you are right about? Rosa Parks working with Conyers but being a secret Republican, because you read something on Pinterest? You're a joke.

Also no evidence that MLK was Republican. It's possible he was at some point, being at the historical polarity swap of the parties around race, but certainly he was all-in on LBJ. That is on record. 

 

So far, I've produced all the links. You goose steppers haven't.

https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/01/martin-luther-king-jr-was-a-republican/

And if you think Dr King was all in for THIS racist redneck

th?id=OIP.dzXaMfxjrxbJc5Md_5xzrQHaEV&pid

You have a screw loose.

LBJ was the WORST enemy of the black community. His policies CREATED the ghettos, the gangs and the drugs that blacks have to deal with today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, herbie said:

So keep maintaining this is THE issue, it's far easier to stumble thru life with your eyes closed and brain shit off, not even noticing Climate change, China stealing your markets and industries, Russia trying to rebuild the USSR. Be proud you're anything but woke.

The climate has changed in the past. Nobody is denying that. At one time, the state of Florida was completely under water. At one time there was a land bridge that connected Russia to Alaska (which is where all those Indians came from way back when)

The climate CAN change. That is science.

Suggesting human activity in the UNITED STATES ALONE (since you snowflakes want to ignore CHINA'S fossil fuel world) can change the climate of  a planet that is mostly WATER is just plain ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

So far, I've produced all the links. You goose steppers haven't.

https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/01/martin-luther-king-jr-was-a-republican/

And if you think Dr King was all in for THIS racist redneck

th?id=OIP.dzXaMfxjrxbJc5Md_5xzrQHaEV&pid

You have a screw loose.

LBJ was the WORST enemy of the black community. His policies CREATED the ghettos, the gangs and the drugs that blacks have to deal with today.

 

Oh, goody. More "history" from the conservative memeplex. ? I'm guessing that quote is also apocryphal, but you're clearly not concerned with credibility.

Meanwhile, from reality @ the King Institute @ Stanford

Quote

Later that year Johnson won a decisive victory in the 1964 election, garnering the widest popular margin in presidential history. King had campaigned actively for Johnson and welcomed the victory, saying, “The forces of good will and progress have triumphed” (King, 4 November 1964). In the first months of Johnson’s elected term, King joined a voting rights campaign in Selma, Alabama, where less than two percent of eligible black voters had been able to register to vote. The brutality of white law enforcement during the Selma to Montgomery March stirred Johnson to send a voting rights bill to Congress. When introducing the bill, Johnson reflected publicly on the poverty and racism he had encountered teaching high school to Mexican immigrant children in Texas. King called Johnson’s speech “one of the most eloquent, unequivocal, and passionate pleas for human rights ever made by the President of the United States” (King, 16 March 1965). Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law on 6 August.

Yes, LBJ was rough-spoken and, by today's standards, was racist in his language (as were most men of his era) but he was also a genuine ally for Black folks and worked closely with King on civil rights legislation. 

As Kennedy and Johnson began aggressively pushing for civil rights as Democrats, southern conservatives, who opposed equal rights, had to find new allies - and homes - among the Republicans to oppose this progress, which effectively flipped the south to a Republican bloc we see today. That's how the "party of Lincoln" became the enemy of Black progress and why Blacks moved en masse to the Democratic party.

 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Oh, goody. More "history" from the conservative memeplex. ? I'm guessing that quote is also apocryphal, but you're clearly not concerned with credibility.

Meanwhile, from reality @ the King Institute @ Stanford

Yes, LBJ was rough-spoken and at by today's standards was racist in his language (as most men of his era, but he was also a genuine ally for Black folks and worked closely with King on civil rights legislation. 

As Kennedy and Johnson began aggressively pushing for civil rights as Democrats, southern conservatives, who opposed equal rights, had to find new allies - and homes - among the Republicans to oppose this progress, which effectively flipped the south to a Republican bloc we see today. That's how the "party of Lincoln" became the enemy of Black progress and why Blacks moved en masse to the Democratic party.

 

So you are saying Dr. King supported a RACIST.

This is the SAME racist who was vice president to the man whose Attorney General put wiretaps on Dr. KIng's phone.

Republicans SPEARHEADED the civil rights movement. It was the DEMOCRATS who created the Jim Crow laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, reason10 said:

So you are saying Dr. King supported a RACIST.

This is the SAME racist who was vice president to the man whose Attorney General put wiretaps on Dr. KIng's phone.

Republicans SPEARHEADED the civil rights movement. It was the DEMOCRATS who created the Jim Crow laws.

I don't have to say it. MLK said it. Openly and plainly. He supported Johnson. He worked closely with Johnson. 

Republicans did not spearhead civil rights. That's laughable. What we actually had was a regional divide, with the south generally opposed and the north generally in support of civil rights. Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, led the charge for the civil rights act, at significant political cost. Progressives took over the Democratic party. It alienated powerful southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and his allies. 

The South didn't suddenly become less racist or less conservative. Thurmond didn't suddenly fall in line with the new Democratic agenda. His electorate wasn't going to vote for Democrats, who had "betrayed" them by supporting civil rights. They were going to vote Republican in the future. And that's the party in which Thurmond and his views were now welcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't have to say it. MLK said it. Openly and plainly. He supported Johnson. He worked closely with Johnson. 

Republicans did not spearhead civil rights. That's laughable. What we actually had was a regional divide, with the south generally opposed and the north generally in support of civil rights. Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, led the charge for the civil rights act, at significant political cost. Progressives took over the Democratic party. It alienated powerful southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and his allies. 

The South didn't suddenly become less racist or less conservative. Thurmond didn't suddenly fall in line with the new Democratic agenda. His electorate wasn't going to vote for Democrats, who had "betrayed" them by supporting civil rights. They were going to vote Republican in the future. And that's the party in which Thurmond and his views were now welcome. 

So FREEING BLACK SLAVES, giving them the right to vote, NONE of that is civil rights?

Your RACIST democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act. The LONGEST filibuster in history went to Strom Thurman, DEMOCRAT who spoke out AGAINST the Civil Rights Act.

https://www.history101.com/august-28-1957-strom-thurmond-civil-rights-act/

Without Republicans, that law never would have gotten passed.

And to hear blacks talk today about how bad they've got it, you'd think there was NO civil rights act at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't have to say it. MLK said it. Openly and plainly. He supported Johnson. He worked closely with Johnson. 

Republicans did not spearhead civil rights. That's laughable. What we actually had was a regional divide, with the south generally opposed and the north generally in support of civil rights. Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, led the charge for the civil rights act, at significant political cost. Progressives took over the Democratic party. It alienated powerful southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and his allies. 

The South didn't suddenly become less racist or less conservative. Thurmond didn't suddenly fall in line with the new Democratic agenda. His electorate wasn't going to vote for Democrats, who had "betrayed" them by supporting civil rights. They were going to vote Republican in the future. And that's the party in which Thurmond and his views were now welcome. 

Nothing you said there is correct. It's made up history. Brought to you from straight out the Progressive Bung Hole.

I offer no cites because you didn't. Don't think I've got em? Try me.

We could start with "was MLK more Democrat or Republican?" Unlike you I've seen both sides of that argument. It's a complicated one and pretty much depends on who you believe. My best bet is nobody knows. Possibly not even MLK. At a certain point it became more about expediency. Some of the weasels around him jumped happily into the Democrat voter plantation when the opportunity presented itself. They'll tell you their good buddy MLK was a Democrat. Some relatives of MLK will tell you he was a Republican. His father was pretty much an activist Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one that seals that deal for me as far as was MLK more Democrat or Republican though - in spirit at least - is the quote about judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

I don't know of a Republican that isn't on board with that.

Are Democrats? The fanboys will say "Yes, of course."

Very well then, denounce critical race theory because that's definitely not on board with the MLK quote that defines him.

And that's pretty much what DeSantis doesn't want Florida to finance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, LBJ was a well known N word spewing bigot. 

When he decided to get on board with the steadily increasing civil rights proposals of the Republicans (in fact, hijack them and make them Democrat) he told 3 democrat Senators th?id=OIP.dzXaMfxjrxbJc5Md_5xzrQHaEV&pid

according to an oft cited LBJ biography. I've yet to see testimony from the 3 senators who were present or anybody else that he didn't say it. It's pretty much accepted fact as far as I can tell.

(Thanks for the graphic, Reason. ;))

And blacks have found themselves trapped in the fatherless homes of the Democrat voter plantation accepting gifts like food stamps and Obama phones for their votes ever since.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. I don't have to say it. MLK said it. Openly and plainly. He supported Johnson. He worked closely with Johnson. 

2. Republicans did not spearhead civil rights. That's laughable. What we actually had was a regional divide, with the south generally opposed and the north generally in support of civil rights. Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, led the charge for the civil rights act, at significant political cost. Progressives took over the Democratic party. It alienated powerful southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond and his allies. 

3.  And that's the party in which Thurmond and his views were now welcome. 

1. It's well known that Johnson and pretty much everybody was a racist at that time.  So was Abraham Lincoln.  It doesn't matter.  The Civil Rights Act was of course supported by MLK and he was invited to be there when it was signed.

220px-Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Right

2. Sort of.  Republicans made efforts through legislation where Democrats did not, in the 1950s.  You have to read about Johnson's brilliant (and evil) manipulations to understand how he got the bill through.

3. Sort of.  Even the losers of the debate could see their time had passed.  George Wallace reconciled with people he had opposed and people moved on.  That was back then.  Nobody could have foreseen a future where people tried to argue things as they do today.  Discussion was a vehicle to broker solutions back in those days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah...

MLK said people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Show me how the democrat favored, current practice of CRT supports that.

Can't do it, right? That matters, because this thread is supposed deal with whether or not it's right for the Republicans of Florida to refuse to finance racist policies like CRT.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Also, Hodad you wanted to wave the flag of the Selma to Montgomery march. You seem to believe that in some way identifies MLK as a Democrat.

MLK's brutal foe in that march and in and around Selma in general was Dallas County sheriff James Clark.

220px-Jim_Clark_(sheriff).jpg

He was a Democrat.

Wow, that's a lot of posts to come around to exactly what I said: conservatives, of both parties, opposed civil rights, with a concentration in the south. Liberals won the contest for the Democratic party with Kennedy and Johnson, leading alienated conservatives (of both parties) to consolidate in the opposition party: the Republicans. This brought/pushed MLK and other civil rights activists on board with Democrats because their purposes aligned. 

  • Alienated conservative (anti civil rights) Dems flipped to the Republican party--voters and candidates.
  • The South flipped to a Republican bloc. 
  • Black voters aligned with the Democrats

 

Which brings us where we are today.

All of this Republican chest beating about "the party of Lincoln" is just nonsense. Yes, it is factually true, but entirely irrelevant to contemporary values and political alignment. Things changed in the late 50s and 60s and they remain changed today. 

Your tired rhetoric about the new Democrat plantation is entirely hollow. I mean, it's fine that you have opinions on the policy, but Blacks and other minority groups know full well which party is invested in equal rights and equal opportunities and they vote accordingly. You can tell yourself all day long that Republicans are really the good guys when it comes to civil rights, but the people to whom those rights matter most overwhelmingly disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Wow, that's a lot of posts to come around to exactly what I said: conservatives, of both parties, opposed civil rights, with a concentration in the south. Liberals won the contest for the Democratic party with Kennedy and Johnson, leading alienated conservatives (of both parties) to consolidate in the opposition party: the Republicans. This brought/pushed MLK and other civil rights activists on board with Democrats because their purposes aligned. 

  • Alienated conservative (anti civil rights) Dems flipped to the Republican party--voters and candidates.
  • The South flipped to a Republican bloc. 
  • Black voters aligned with the Democrats

Once I've read BS like that I'll read no further.

I never said any of that. Only in the twisted thought process of what you want to believe did I say that. And yes I know you can pick some little tidbit of what I did say to say I'm on board with every lie you put up there but I know how that brand of BS works. Don't even try it.

The modern civil rights era began during Eisenhower. It became politically expedient by Johnson. Since that time it has become so corrupted under Democrat control there's an argument that says it has done more harm than good.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's well known that Johnson and pretty much everybody was a racist at that time.  So was Abraham Lincoln.  It doesn't matter.  The Civil Rights Act was of course supported by MLK and he was invited to be there when it was signed.

220px-Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Right

2. Sort of.  Republicans made efforts through legislation where Democrats did not, in the 1950s.  You have to read about Johnson's brilliant (and evil) manipulations to understand how he got the bill through.

3. Sort of.  Even the losers of the debate could see their time had passed.  George Wallace reconciled with people he had opposed and people moved on.  That was back then.  Nobody could have foreseen a future where people tried to argue things as they do today.  Discussion was a vehicle to broker solutions back in those days.

 

1. Preaching to the choir!

2. Yes, Johnson was not a charismatic leader like Kennedy. He was a grinder who knew how to get shit done. The phone calls and transcripts (that are available) from that period are fascinating. A POTUS up 24/7 personally calling people and flogging votes. 

3. I don't think it was a handshake and "good game" and "I'll get over it." There was a LOT of bitterness and some never got over it. Racism and the opposition to civil rights continued to animate conservative voters through the 70s at least. Obviously I don't think most Republicans today are explicitly racist, but still the party is the only viable home for Americans who are and it ends up reflected in the platform. They must leave room to accommodate them. Suddenly it's about "state's rights." And we see the same alignment for gay rights, trans rights, women's rights etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Racism and the opposition to civil rights continued to animate conservative voters through the 70s at least.

A2xzHXQ.gif

YSeIfvY.jpg

Post-MLK, little by little, bit by bit it became less acceptable to be racist. In general. Everywhere.

The progressive arm of the left decided they wanted to beat their chest and strut about under the banner of their acceptance of that is all.

All the while further subjugating those they claimed to be saving.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Once I've read BS like that I'll read no further.

I never said any of that. Only in the twisted thought process of what you want to believe did I say that. And yes I know you can pick some little tidbit of what I did say to say I'm on board with every lie you put up there but I know how that brand of BS works. Don't even try it.

The modern civil rights era began during Eisenhower. It became politically expedient by Johnson. Since that time it has become so corrupted under Democrat control there's an argument that says it has done more harm than good.

You pointed out that Clark was a Democrat, as if it were somehow significant. That means nothing given the polarity shift that was underway around civil rights. As I said, conservatives were against equal rights, liberals were in favor of equal rights, and the parties realigned around this divide. It's not weird at all that a southern conservative was a Democrat in the early 60s or that a MLK could have been a Republican before civil rights.

Who was a Republican and who was a Democrat prior to the Civil rights movement has no bearing on the parties today and what they stand for. The civil rights movement changed everything. King and the other civil rights leaders aligned strongly with Democrats during the civil rights effort- and ever since. They didn't simply keep voting Republican. They voted for the party and candidates who shared their values.

On the flip side, do you think Clark felt welcome in the post-Kennedy/Johnson Democratic party? Do you really think he just turned his views 180 and kept voting Democrat? Or did he vote for the candidates who represented his views, aligning to the Republicans like Thurmond and most of the southern conservatives? 

So WTF is your point in even making such a comment? How is it relevant? Do you think it makes Republicans look good to say we used to be the party of equal rights 70 years ago?

I know there's "an argument" that the civil rights movement has done more harm than good. It's not a good argument, but it exists. Racism didn't die with civil rights, the effect was simply blunted by legal protections.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

You pointed out that Clark was a Democrat, as if it were somehow significant. That means nothing given the polarity shift that was underway around civil rights.

 

OK again, I can immediately tell this post is going to be BS ridden so I'll just deal with the first point.

The fact Clark was a Democrat casts shade on the idea MLK was coming round to that way of thinking. That was the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...