AH challenge:more liberal america

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael E Johnson said:
If you actually READ the articles they both note that the Republican party's racial strategy started with BARRY GOLDWATER. Also as you should know I never said that Barry Goldwater was racist-just his strategies ,policies and of course the people who supported him.

Barry Goldwater's strategies and policies were NOT RACIST. He believed that the method being used by the federal government was unconstitutional and thus he stood against them. He was not racist. His policies were not racist. His strategies were not racist. He was simply a little too naive and he was trying to follow the constitution to the best of his abilities. He firmly advocated states' rights and did not turn his back on his morals. Thus, he is neither a scumbag, like the two Kennedy's, who you had the gall to say were more honorable than he, nor a hypocrite, like MLK, Jr., who ranted and raved about white being bad, and then went to his hotel room and slept with white prostitutes.

Barry Goldwater told the truth, he didn't lie, he clung to his morals, and he took the shit that the Democrats threw at him in the election while not resorting to the low tactics of his opposition. He was a decorated war veteran and, yes, a father of modern conservatism - which is completely different than racism. You seem to have "conservatism" and "racism" mixed together as one...
 
---And, BTW, the Hutchinson Report in no way backs up your argument. It's like KKK in terms of credibility. Neither are truthful because each have their own racist agenda. Thus, they are not valid sources of information---


I want to get this straight are you actually saying what he says about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964 is untrue? Dont wait for the translation to gibberish answer that now.
 
What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.

Now, I'm a firm believer in federalism and "states' rights." The 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution were going unenforced in the South. That's a place for federal action right there. Once blacks can vote, other changes will follow, as politicians will try to pander to them (that's what politicians generally do).

Remember, in the South, the business classes opposed racist policies, but b/c the politicians and most of said politicians' supporters were racist, the business folks got the shaft. Once blacks could vote (courtesy of US marshals laying the proverbial smackdown on the Klan), a black-bourgeosie (sic) alliance could make progress in race relations.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
I want to get this staight are you actually saying what he says about Goldwater and the GOP since 1964 is untrue? Dont wait for the translation to gibberish answer that now.

I'm saying that what he says about Goldwater is too biased to be completely believable. And yes, since it doesn't have my full trust, I'm saying that there is a chance that at least some of it is untrue.
 
--I'm saying that what he says about Goldwater is too biased to be completely believable. And yes, since it doesn't have my full trust, I'm saying that there is a chance that at least some of it is untrue.---

Unbelievable :confused:


Even more unbelievable than this

--- nor a hypocrite, like MLK, Jr., who ranted and raved about white being bad, and then went to his hotel room and slept with white prostitutes---


I'm curious where did you learn your history from -Apologist U?
 
Matt Quinn said:
What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.

Yes. That's true. But there's no way that you can blame Goldwater (who, as some may have guessed, is one of my favorite figures in American history) for purposely attempting to impede the progress of southern blacks. Nor can you blame any perceived continued racism within the Republican party in 2004 on Barry Goldwater, as he has done.

Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie.
 
--What Michael is trying to say is that although he acknowledges that Goldwater is not a racist, he believes Goldwater's strict interpretation of "states' rights" would impede progress for southern blacks.---


I dont need help with what I'm trying to say.It should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of American history, a command of English and no desire to sugar-coat and soft pedal racism.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
Unbelievable

If I quoted a website biased towards whites, would you believe what it said?


Michael E Johnson said:
I'm curious where did you learn your history from -Apologist U?

Good one. That is funny. I'm not laughing.

So you deny that he ever slept with white prostitutes? I guess you also deny that he plagiarized more than a small share of his doctoral thesis?
 
---If I quoted a radical white power website, would you be inclined to believe what it said? Just as I am not inclined to believe a black power website, I would not expect you to believe a white power website, which I myself wouldn't believe. Biased reporting, no matter which side it is on, can not be taken into count over serious issues. ---

You know I'm starting to have trouble beliving that you actually believe what you are saying. What is reported on that site and many others -including numerous history books are FACTS. If you dont want believe it thats up to you,some people dont believe the Earth is millions of years old, but it doesnt change the fact it happened.



--So you deny that he ever slept with white prostitutes? I guess you also deny that he plagiarized more than a small share of his doctoral thesis?---

LOL- this was in reference to your saying that MLK said that white pople were bad.Anyone with a passing knowledege of the FACTS of American history knows that MLK said that white racism was bad-you know the racist views of the people who actually voted for Barry Goldwater. You have to stop distorting histoy with someone who knows history-especially in regard to African Americans-its getting embarrasing.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
LOL- this was in reference to your saying that MLK said that white pople were bad.Anyone with a passing knowledege of the FACTS of American history knows that MLK said that white racism was bad-you know the racist views of the people who actually voted for Barry Goldwater.

Okay. Sorry. My mistake. I never cared for MLK and thus I didn't listen to him and didn't care to learn about him.

As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.
 
--As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.---

Thats true.But the facts are that in 1964 A BIG PACK OF RACISTS VOTED FOR BARRY GOLDWATER. Why was that-they liked black -framed glasses?
 
Michael E Johnson said:
--As for Goldwater - VOTING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER DOES NOT MAKE A PERSON RACIST as you imply in this statement.---

Thats true.But the facts are that in 1964 A BIG PACK OF RACISTS VOTED FOR BARRY GOLDWATER. Why was that-they liked black -framed glasses?

They voted for Goldwater because they believed that they could twist his policies in their favor. Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie.
 
--They voted for Goldwater because they believed that they could twist his policies in their favor. Barry Goldwater, as I have said, was not intending to impede the progress of southern blacks. He was doing his best to interpret the Constitution as he saw it. He was naive in thinking that race problems would solve themselves. But he DID NOT enter the 1964 campaign with the intention of carrying forth policies to impede the progress of southern blacks, as he has been claiming. Any claim that he was intentionally impeding the progress of southern blacks for his own ends is an outright lie---


Just as its a bald faced lie to pretend that Goldwater and the GOP also DIDNT know in advance that taking this stand would put racist southern whites into their camp. Its a complete joke and naked apologism to even imply that this strategy was not deliberately deployed in the South to help win racist white votes-which is EXACTLY the effect it had and has had for 40 years as proven by the FACTS. His own quote about the issue was "you have to hunt where the ducks are" has become the hallmark of the GOP in the South for every GOP presidential candidate since Goldwater.
 
Grey Wolf said:
Personally I would address the Goldwater questions simply on this basis

1. If states rights was allowed to be supreme, would segregation have ended ?

2. If not, then support for states rights is de facto support for racism

3. If it is obvious that 1 would have not have occurred and that 2 is therefore true, surely anybody standing on a policy of states rights KNOWS that they are also standing on a policy of segregation ?

4. Since segregation is clearly wrong (unless someone actually wants to argue otherwise) then it needed to be got rid of, especially in the atmosphere of the 1960s which could frequently turn violent, and where MLK's leadership was often the only thing preventing the whole movement turning violent

5. If its wrong, and states rights won't stop it, and it needs to be dealt with somewhat pressingly, then only the federal government can handle this

Grey Wolf


This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations. Goldwater would not have listed race as in his top 10 concerns, he was more concerned with the rapidly expanding size and power of the Federal Government and the huge tax increases that accompanied this. Goldwater has come out very strongly in favor of equal rights, even for gays.

Just because a policy might have delayed integration in some states does not mean that the supporter of said policy is inherently racist. That would be like saying anyone who was against there being a Secession and Civil War was racist because this was the fastest (but not necessarily the best, at least in the long run) way to get rid of slavery.
 
--This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations.---


except for the FACT that Southern racists who used the term "states rights" INVARIABLY when they were talking about maintaining Jim Crow as did the politicians who pandered to them on the issue. Just as it PRIMARILY meant maintaing and expanding slavery when it was used by Confederates in the 1860's.
 
Michael E Johnson said:
Just as its a bald faced lie to pretend that Goldwater and the GOP also DIDNT know in advance that taking this stand would put racist southern whites into their camp. Its a complete joke and naked apologism to even imply that this strategy was not deliberately deployed in the South to help win racist white votes-which is EXACTLY the effect it had and has had for 40 years as proven by the FACTS. His own quote about the issue was "you have to hunt where the ducks are" has become the hallmark of the GOP in the South for every GOP presidential candidate since Goldwater.

The south voted for Goldwater because they perceived potential advantages from the way he organized his policies. The south conformed to meet Goldwater's view, Goldwater did not change his view point to conform to what the south wanted. He did not deliberately employ tactics to win win "racist white votes," those racist whites saw cracks in Goldwater's policy which they could manipulate to their own advantage.

I'm sick of arguing this. Goldwater was an honorable man and he was not a racist. I've said my peace, and, frankly, I don't give a damn what you want to twist and contort to your own agenda. I don't give a damn what you or anyone else like you thinks about me or Barry Goldwater, but I'm sick of "listening" to your twisted bullshit.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
This oversimplifies. State's rights was about State's rights, not a "narrow" issue like race relations. Goldwater would not have listed race as in his top 10 concerns, he was more concerned with the rapidly expanding size and power of the Federal Government and the huge tax increases that accompanied this. Goldwater has come out very strongly in favor of equal rights, even for gays.

Just because a policy might have delayed integration in some states does not mean that the supporter of said policy is inherently racist. That would be like saying anyone who was against there being a Secession and Civil War was racist because this was the fastest (but not necessarily the best, at least in the long run) way to get rid of slavery.

Again, this is almost exactly what I've been trying to get across. Maybe it hasn't sounded like it, but this is what I've meant.
 
Grey Wolf said:
Sorry, I thought they were the only ones being argued about here, that was all.

I do wonder quite what the point of worrying about being out-numbered by a variety of races is, even more than the point of worrying at being out-numbered by a single one ? Not that I am saying that you have those fears/worries, I am just wondering why it SHOULD be seen as a valid fear/worry by people and whether the fact that it IS seen is what is really being debated here once all the extraneous elements are stripped away

Grey Wolf

Because it means the dissolution of one's culture, the end of the world you grew up in, and the need to integrate into something entirely new. I didn't say this was bad, just that its disconcerting. I don't see how its possible to expect people to NOT have these anxieties. Most of the reactions in places like California have not been so much racist as a desire to defend the existing culture by expecting a minimal amount of integration, like learning to speak English, which seems to me to be reasonable.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top