Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Until you can acknowledge that the Democratic party (Truman/Kennedy/Clinton/Obama) and the dixiecrat party (an actual party) are/were two different things. I can't waste my time debating with you.
I did not write that the republican party evolved from the dixiecrat party. I wrote that when Thurmond and Dukes could not gain traction in the democratic party with their segregation ideas they moved into the republican party. Here is the switch that Dinesh and Lustylad fail to acknowledge. From the link:
Members of the Republican Party (which nominated Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948), along with many Democrats from the northern and western states, supported civil rights legislation that the Deep South Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.[7][8]
In 1948 Northern democrats and republicans were against segregation. The southern democrats (dixiecrats) were for it.
When LBJ put in the Civil rights act in 1965 republican senators and dixiecrat senators were against it. LBJ had to cut deals with republican senators who were against the Civil rights act legislation to get it passed. That's the switch. Right after that Blacks stop voting for republicans and started voting for democrats. This has stayed that way up to now. In the last presidential election HRC got 88% of the black vote.
I did not write that the republican party evolved from the dixiecrat party. I wrote that when Thurmond and Dukes could not gain traction in the democratic party with their segregation ideas they moved into the republican party. Here is the switch that Dinesh and Lustylad fail to acknowledge. From the link:
Members of the Republican Party (which nominated Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948), along with many Democrats from the northern and western states, supported civil rights legislation that the Deep South Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.[7][8]
In 1948 Northern democrats and republicans were against segregation. The southern democrats (dixiecrats) were for it.
When LBJ put in the Civil rights act in 1965 republican senators and dixiecrat senators were against it. LBJ had to cut deals with republican senators who were against the Civil rights act legislation to get it passed. That's the switch. Right after that Blacks stop voting for republicans and started voting for democrats. This has stayed that way up to now. In the last presidential election HRC got 88% of the black vote.
you claimed that a large number of dixiecrats (elected democrats) moved to the Republican party which has been proven wrong for years. you cited Thurmond yet you can't cite another. now you are trying to defend your position by claiming the switch was black support for the Democratic party after the civil rights legislation.
Museum Curator Resigns After He Is Accused of Racism for Saying He Would Still Collect Art From White Men
Irate employees of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art said the removal of Gary Garrels was "non-negotiable."
Until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster.
"Gary's removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable," read the petition. "Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?"
This accusation—that Garrels' choices as an art curator are guided by white supremacist beliefs—is a very serious one. Unsurprisingly, it does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
The petitioners cite few examples of anything even approaching bad behavior from Garrels. Their sole complaint is that he allegedly concluded a presentation on how to diversify the museum's holdings by saying, "don't worry, we will definitely still continue to collect white artists."
Garrels has apparently articulated this sentiment on more than one occasion. According to artnet.com, he said that it would be impossible to completely shun white artists, because this would constitute "reverse discrimination." That's the sum total of his alleged crimes. He made a perfectly benign, wholly inoffensive, obviously true statement that at least some of the museum's featured artists would continue to be white. The petition lists no other specific grievances.
You might think that one of the most prominent art curators in the country—with 20 years of experience at SFMOMA—would be able to weather such a pathetically weak accusation of racism. But in the current cultural moment, it appears not. Garrels promptly resigned.
In a statement announcing his decision to step down, Garrels apologized for the harm his words caused, only slightly disputing the absurd charge against him. " I do not believe I have ever said that it is important to collect the art of white men," he said, according to artnet.com. "I have said that it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of white men."
Suffice it to say that this is not the language of a white supremacist. Those who say otherwise—that Garrels is guilty of racism—have stripped the word of its potency. They have shown once again that the signatories of the recent Harper's letter were entirely correct that the progressive drive to purge lofty institutions of racism and sexism has frequently gone astray, in a manner that threatens both free inquiry and common decency.
Say anything that can be "perceived", twisted into support of anybody White whether having ever owned slaves or obviously discriminated, will get you cancelled from your job and perhaps have your family threatened and your home picketed as the Director of Homeland Security just found out.
A protest group is calling on demonstrators to march on the Virginia residence of acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf this weekend.
According to an email sent to activists from ShutdownDC, demonstrators want to gather Sunday morning and demand President Trump’s federal agents to “be removed from every city,” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, and for every person detained by Customs and Border Protection to be released.
Wolf is helping to spearhead the administration’s efforts to quell the violence in several cities across the country where riots have erupted, particularly on federal property.
OH! and have you heard? Jarry Nadler says that Antifa is a myth.
Rep. Jerry Nadler said the idea that antifa is behind the violence in Portland, Oregon, is nothing but a “myth."
Writer-producer Austen Fletcher approached Nadler in a video posted to Twitter on Sunday and said to him, “There’s violence across the whole country, do you disavow the violence from antifa that’s happening in Portland right now?”
“That’s a myth that's being spread only in Washington, D.C.,” Nadler responded.
“About antifa in Portland?” Fletcher asked.
"Yes,” the New York Democrat replied.
One pundit said that was like that guy in Iraq named "Bagdad Bob" who while on air saying there were no Americans in Bagdad, the television audience could see American tanks in the background.
Museum Curator Resigns After He Is Accused of Racism for Saying He Would Still Collect Art From White Men
Irate employees of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art said the removal of Gary Garrels was "non-negotiable."
Until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster.
"Gary's removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable," read the petition. "Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?"
This accusation—that Garrels' choices as an art curator are guided by white supremacist beliefs—is a very serious one. Unsurprisingly, it does not stand up to even minimal scrutiny.
The petitioners cite few examples of anything even approaching bad behavior from Garrels. Their sole complaint is that he allegedly concluded a presentation on how to diversify the museum's holdings by saying, "don't worry, we will definitely still continue to collect white artists."
Garrels has apparently articulated this sentiment on more than one occasion. According to artnet.com, he said that it would be impossible to completely shun white artists, because this would constitute "reverse discrimination." That's the sum total of his alleged crimes. He made a perfectly benign, wholly inoffensive, obviously true statement that at least some of the museum's featured artists would continue to be white. The petition lists no other specific grievances.
You might think that one of the most prominent art curators in the country—with 20 years of experience at SFMOMA—would be able to weather such a pathetically weak accusation of racism. But in the current cultural moment, it appears not. Garrels promptly resigned.
In a statement announcing his decision to step down, Garrels apologized for the harm his words caused, only slightly disputing the absurd charge against him. " I do not believe I have ever said that it is important to collect the art of white men," he said, according to artnet.com. "I have said that it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of white men."
Suffice it to say that this is not the language of a white supremacist. Those who say otherwise—that Garrels is guilty of racism—have stripped the word of its potency. They have shown once again that the signatories of the recent Harper's letter were entirely correct that the progressive drive to purge lofty institutions of racism and sexism has frequently gone astray, in a manner that threatens both free inquiry and common decency.
Say anything that can be "perceived", twisted into support of anybody White whether having ever owned slaves or obviously discriminated, will get you cancelled from your job and perhaps have your family threatened and your home picketed as the Director of Homeland Security just found out.
A protest group is calling on demonstrators to march on the Virginia residence of acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf this weekend.
According to an email sent to activists from ShutdownDC, demonstrators want to gather Sunday morning and demand President Trump’s federal agents to “be removed from every city,” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished, and for every person detained by Customs and Border Protection to be released.
Wolf is helping to spearhead the administration’s efforts to quell the violence in several cities across the country where riots have erupted, particularly on federal property.
OH! and have you heard? Jarry Nadler says that Antifa is a myth.
Rep. Jerry Nadler said the idea that antifa is behind the violence in Portland, Oregon, is nothing but a “myth."
Writer-producer Austen Fletcher approached Nadler in a video posted to Twitter on Sunday and said to him, “There’s violence across the whole country, do you disavow the violence from antifa that’s happening in Portland right now?”
“That’s a myth that's being spread only in Washington, D.C.,” Nadler responded.
“About antifa in Portland?” Fletcher asked.
"Yes,” the New York Democrat replied.
One pundit said that was like that guy in Iraq named "Bagdad Bob" who while on air saying there were no Americans in Bagdad, the television audience could see American tanks in the background.
"Don't believe your lyin' eyes".
so since Leonardo Da Vinci was a racist white guy they'll be taking down the Mona Lisa and burning it right??
actually i consider it an ugly painting but that's not the point eh?
and by extension the dims in the judiciary committee he chairs
they had a hearing , just ended, with atty gen wm barr
I don't know why they needed him there..they wouldnt let him speak
they just pontificated and invariably misstated facts in their pontifications
maybe that's why they called in a hearing...they made him sit there to hear their incorrect and false diatribes
seems to be the plan for the Dems. like Schiff and his "paraphrasing" of the Ukraine call and trying to pass it off as actual conversation. also they like to interrupt don't they? well that's one way to keep the truth from coming out. knowing Barr i bet he got some shots in. i may have to look that up online and watch it.
i gather the hearing was the one about Evil Lord Trump sending in federal agents? well the libtard mayors are trying to sue to keep the agents out. good luck with that ..
Mayors of Major US Cities Reject Deployment of Federal Forces
they can "reject" it all they want. not a damn thing they can do. yet another example of the left trying to deny a clear presidential power. so far they are about 0 for whatever in their attempts. don't see this turning out any different.
Time to take a different tack - if the DPST Mayors adn Governors want to have their cities burn - and refuse any help to control their terrorists
Let Them Be - let America see who the DPST's are - radical Marxists trying to destabilize the Rule of law inorder to establish a Marxist autocracy with themselves as nomenklatura.
Just ask AOC and Bernie - they see this as the Marxist revolution beginning.
Let citizens see who the DPST's really are prior to Nov 3.
