It's Time for Black America to Break Up With the Democratic Party | Opinion - Newsweek

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
We also need to break up with the Obama's

Obama:

Won the Nobel Peace Prize, and spent 8 years directing drone strikes, many of which killed
innocent women and children.

Voted for the PATRIOT ACT while still a senator.

Refused to even put health care for all (single payer, like in Western Europe and Canada) on
the table for negotiations.

Nominated a Federalist Society associate (Merrick Garland) on the advice of a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
senator, in order to make sure he was "acceptable" to the right wing powers that be.

Failed to make it known that Russia ( a supremely racist nation) was interfering in our elections on the behalf
of tRump, the orange nazi.

Flipped from asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman in order to go along with the program.

Developed the Deadly Obama-Style of political combat: beat the living dog shit out of your opponent's knees
with your nuts. Eventually, you will wear him down, and bipartisanship will ensue.

So...yeah.

A generally good, extremely intelligent man, who made several poor choices, some of which led us into the predicament
we are currently in.

In the words of the inimitable Dr. Cornell West: we thought we were voting for John Coltrane. What we got was Kenny G.

Biden: Obama is back, just this time not Black.

And yes, I voted for both of them. Obama, because I thought he might be a modern day Malcolm (yeah, right), and Biden
ONLY because the orange Hitler was an immeasurably worse evil.

Break up with the Obamas. Take up with Malcolm X.

Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:

Don Coreleone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Obama:

Won the Nobel Peace Prize, and spent 8 years directing drone strikes, many of which killed
innocent women and children.

Voted for the PATRIOT ACT while still a senator.

Refused to even put health care for all (single payer, like in Western Europe and Canada) on
the table for negotiations.

Nominated a Federalist Society associate (Merrick Garland) on the advice of a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
senator, in order to make sure he was "acceptable" to the right wing powers that be.

Failed to make it known that Russia ( a supremely racist nation) was interfering in our elections on the behalf
of tRump, the orange nazi.

Flipped from asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman in order to go along with the program.

Developed the Deadly Obama-Style of political combat: beat the living dog shit out of your opponent's knees
with your nuts. Eventually, you will wear him down, and bipartisanship will ensue.

So...yeah.

A generally good, extremely intelligent man, who made several poor choices, some of which led us into the predicament
we are currently in.

In the words of the inimitable Dr. Cornell West: we thought we were voting for John Coltrane. What we got was Kenny G.

Biden: Obama is back, just this time not Black.

And yes, I voted for both of them. Obama, because I thought he might be a modern day Malcolm (yeah, right), and Biden
ONLY because the orange Hitler was an immeasurably worse evil.

Break up with the Obamas. Take up with Malcolm X.

Just my two cents.
Don't forget never attending one NAACP function while in office he sent his wife while running for the office.

Shitting on Black men at every given opportunity even going to the Moorehouse graduation shitting on those brothers who are doing the right thing.

Never attending a CBC function talking down to them talking about take off your house shoes and put on your work shoes.

Calling the protesters in Baltimore thugs whilst making excuses for his white cousins.

Play acting drinking the water in Flint and not giving those people redress.

Shitting on reparations while running for office (that should have been our cue then)
 

BKF

Rising Star
Registered
Don't forget never attending one NAACP function while in office he sent his wife while running for the office.

Shitting on Black men at every given opportunity even going to the Moorehouse graduation shitting on those brothers who are doing the right thing.

Never attending a CBC function talking down to them talking about take off your house shoes and put on your work shoes.

Calling the protesters in Baltimore thugs whilst making excuses for his white cousins.

Play acting drinking the water in Flint and not giving those people redress.

Shitting on reparations while running for office (that should have been our cue then)
Like y'all really give a fuck about the NAACP. That organization get shitted on all the time on this board and in the real world.
 

xxxbishopxxx

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
If I can ask, which Republican views do you support?

The reason I ask is a lot of the Republican views are just a lip service. They don't even believe their own shit. All this Pro-Life, anti-abortion are Christian talking points (meanwhile when their 12-17 year old daughter gets pregnant they sneak her off to get a secret abortion - the hypocrisy)

What it comes down to is control. Control over a woman's body so that has no choice but to have a baby she doesn't want or has no abortion clinic available for her to get an abortion if she wanted one
And no social support to help her during rough times.
 

godofwine

Supreme Porn Poster - Ret
BGOL Investor
And no social support to help her during rough times.
Exactly. The biggest problem single mothers have is daycare which is expensive than a bitch. And then, when the kid gets sick and they have to call off work they lose money or lose their jobs, sometimes both

If I were a woman ain't no way in hell I'd have someones kid if I'm not engaged or married to them

Even though the vast majority of single mothers are irresponsible (because they know how babies are made) if they don't want the responsibility they shouldn't be forced to have the kid
 

Dr. Truth

GOD to all Women
BGOL Investor
Please explain how single payer

The same ones that are quick to tell you Trump ain't in office no more.
Exactly and anybody still using that Democrats started the KKK non sense is a confirmed coon or cac. Pretending pre civil rights Dems are the same group of people and ideologies. Knowing damn well they flipped platforms
 

Mello Mello

Ballz of Adamantium
BGOL Investor
I always go back to my roots.

What we need now hasn’t changed much from what we needed long ago. The goal is getting more right thinking (pro Black) African Americans elected to political office to help us achieve those goals.

Some revisions can be made to suit current times but still I always go back to The Ten-Point Program laid out by BPPSD.

1. Freedom
2. Employment
3. Reparations from capitalist
4. Housing
5. True Education
6. Healthcare free and/or affordable
7. End police brutality and unjust killing of Blacks
8. End to unnecessary wars
9. End to prison industrial complex that targets Blacks
10. Education and access to new and emerging technology

This is just a paraphrasing of the old Black Panthers 10 point program. The blueprint is still there for us to follow. You can look at that list from then and measure how far we’ve progressed in achieving any of this for our communities and how much more work needs to be done. Then and now the emphasis should be Black pride, community control and unification for civil rights. If we are looking at any party or elected official this should be in the forefront of their mind.

Forget who’s the president or who’s a dem or a repub. Who will help us achieve these goals? And I’m talking on a community level FIRST, because that’s where it matters most. If we succeed there it can expand nationally just like most of the Black Panthers programs did. It’s not complex we just need to properly educate and immerse ourselves within government and involve ourselves in our communities.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Actually, it was the other way around.

Kennedy played lip service, and never considered civil rights a priority.
LBJ, having had a history of working will underprivileged kids, was the one
who actually pushed for civil rights.

And, respectfully, to suggest MLK is not deserving of all the credit he receives belies a lack of depth of knowledge on your part.

HIs approach based on listening to this speech was to use the Supreme Court to help all American gain equal rights with respect to voting, school desegregation, and other challenges. If you as an immigrant or former slave with birthright citizenship, why do you need a law to give you the right to vote or attend the same public school? I think it is an dishonor/disrespect to have a law required just to vote when I have been declared a citizen through a Constitutional Amendment. It is saying you are distinct separate group with some citizenship rights, that needs a law that has to be renewed every 20 years.

Any politician proclaiming that they voted to renew this law is racially mocking us. President Kennedy approach is more dignified.

Now public accommodations would have required a law since you are dealing with private businesses. The best approach would have been for the government to fund business startups to fill this niche in the marketplace.
 

Supersav

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
You obviously don't get the meaning of the word static or the question of why one would need a breakup in the first place.
Because his symbolism was and is dangerous. It means nothing in the end and black people keep falling for it. A black face in politics doesn't mean they will do shit for black people. In fact most of the time it means the opposite because they wouldn't be in such a position without kissing white ass
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
[QUOTE="Mello Mello, post: 22678503, member: 2374"

Forget who’s the president or who’s a dem or a repub. Who will help us achieve these goals?
[/QUOTE]

Although I am in agreement with most of what you said, I must take exception to this one.

If the next president is also the next Hitler (e.g. tRump), all of those points and concerns will be rendered moot.

Your rights and privileges will be curtailed to the point that pursuing them will be a crime.
They will, at some point, stop pretending or even paying lip service to the concept of your "rights".

People who THINK, intellectuals, scholars, artists, poets, musicians, teachers, etc., are always among the first
to suffer at the hands of fascists once they come to power. They recognize the power in free thinking, hate it,
and respond accordingly, often with frightening efficiency.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
Because his symbolism was and is dangerous. It means nothing in the end and black people keep falling for it. A black face in politics doesn't mean they will do shit for black people. In fact most of the time it means the opposite because they wouldn't be in such a position without kissing white ass

This is truer than I like to admit.

Just look at a tRump rally, and see all the grinning knee-groes right up in the front, supporting a white supremacist.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
HIs approach based on listening to this speech was to use the Supreme Court to help all American gain equal rights with respect to voting, school desegregation, and other challenges. If you as an immigrant or former slave with birthright citizenship, why do you need a law to give you the right to vote or attend the same public school? I think it is an dishonor/disrespect to have a law required just to vote when I have been declared a citizen through a Constitutional Amendment. It is saying you are distinct separate group with some citizenship rights, that needs a law that has to be renewed every 20 years.

Any politician proclaiming that they voted to renew this law is racially mocking us. President Kennedy approach is more dignified.

Now public accommodations would have required a law since you are dealing with private businesses. The best approach would have been for the government to fund business startups to fill this niche in the marketplace.


Laws, without sincerity and consistent, legitimate application, are simply words, used selectively to suppress or uplift.

This should be painfully evident to any person in this country who is not white nor male.

That being said, would you rather they did NOT vote to renew the law? If the law is not renewed, help me to understand
how this ends up being better for black people?

It is great to want to fight a legitimate war, but discounting those who would fight along side of you for the same purpose is non productive.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
Because his symbolism was and is dangerous. It means nothing in the end and black people keep falling for it. A black face in politics doesn't mean they will do shit for black people. In fact most of the time it means the opposite because they wouldn't be in such a position without kissing white ass

I agreed with a statement to this effect.

Of course, I interpreted it in a way I thought proper.

Meaning?

This: Obama is a brilliant, well loved, personable man. Has been for a long time.

Don't mean jack shit if he is not doing anything for the average black man.

Do you feel enriched as a result of his 8 years? Do you have health care, if you quit your job?
Do you still, like the rest of us, live under the threat of the Patriot Act, should it be used to the extent
of its potency?

Did he even TRY to appoint ANY Black person to the scotus?

Voting for someone because he is Black and only because he is Black like you and you like him is dangerous.
It explains why so many majority black communities vote for the same black names and faces over and over and
over again, based purely on name recognition and the fact that they are Black. They get very little, if anything in return for
their support.

This is a situation that absolves those elected under these circumstances of the responsibility for doing anything
for the population that foolishly keeps putting them in office.

This is what I meant; I cannot say what the person who originally posted the statement meant.
 

crossovernegro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I voted for Obama because it was Obama/Biden or Mccain/Palin. Anybody want to argue that Mccain/PALIN would have been a better team? Same for Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan. In 2008 and 2012, he was the better man for the job, as a person and politically. I'm sure some people voted for him just because he's black, but many many more voted against him just because he's black. A lot of us though, took a look at the general election and just picked the best man.

He didn't nominate any black people for scotus... but he did get 62 black people appointed to federal judgeships... and that's the pool where most scotus nominees eventually come from.

I agreed with a statement to this effect.

Of course, I interpreted it in a way I thought proper.

Meaning?

This: Obama is a brilliant, well loved, personable man. Has been for a long time.

Don't mean jack shit if he is not doing anything for the average black man.

Do you feel enriched as a result of his 8 years? Do you have health care, if you quit your job?
Do you still, like the rest of us, live under the threat of the Patriot Act, should it be used to the extent
of its potency?

Did he even TRY to appoint ANY Black person to the scotus?

Voting for someone because he is Black and only because he is Black like you and you like him is dangerous.
It explains why so many majority black communities vote for the same black names and faces over and over and
over again, based purely on name recognition and the fact that they are Black. They get very little, if anything in return for
their support.

This is a situation that absolves those elected under these circumstances of the responsibility for doing anything
for the population that foolishly keeps putting them in office.

This is what I meant; I cannot say what the person who originally posted the statement meant.
 
Last edited:

godofwine

Supreme Porn Poster - Ret
BGOL Investor
Obama:

Won the Nobel Peace Prize, and spent 8 years directing drone strikes, many of which killed
innocent women and children.

Voted for the PATRIOT ACT while still a senator.

Refused to even put health care for all (single payer, like in Western Europe and Canada) on
the table for negotiations.

Nominated a Federalist Society associate (Merrick Garland) on the advice of a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
senator, in order to make sure he was "acceptable" to the right wing powers that be.

Failed to make it known that Russia ( a supremely racist nation) was interfering in our elections on the behalf
of tRump, the orange nazi.

Flipped from asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman in order to go along with the program.

Developed the Deadly Obama-Style of political combat: beat the living dog shit out of your opponent's knees
with your nuts. Eventually, you will wear him down, and bipartisanship will ensue.

So...yeah.

A generally good, extremely intelligent man, who made several poor choices, some of which led us into the predicament
we are currently in.

In the words of the inimitable Dr. Cornell West: we thought we were voting for John Coltrane. What we got was Kenny G.

Biden: Obama is back, just this time not Black.

And yes, I voted for both of them. Obama, because I thought he might be a modern day Malcolm (yeah, right), and Biden
ONLY because the orange Hitler was an immeasurably worse evil.

Break up with the Obamas. Take up with Malcolm X.

Just my two cents.
This line right here got me

In the words of the inimitable Dr. Cornell West: we thought we were voting for John Coltrane. What we got was Kenny G.

Yo, who are you, man? You haven't been on this board long. Kinda came out of nowhere but you good peoples
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
This line right here got me

In the words of the inimitable Dr. Cornell West: we thought we were voting for John Coltrane. What we got was Kenny G.

Yo, who are you, man? You haven't been on this board long. Kinda came out of nowhere but you good peoples

Thanks, man. Kind words. I like that you share your thoughts intelligently, and the fact that we can agree, and disagree and not be disagreeable.

Most people get pissed unless you agree on EVERY FUCKING THING. Or at least, that seems to be my experience as of late.

As for who I am: I am NFL: Nigga From Linwood.

But seriously, just a dude from Detroit, tryin' to find my way.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Laws, without sincerity and consistent, legitimate application, are simply words, used selectively to suppress or uplift.

This should be painfully evident to any person in this country who is not white nor male.

That being said, would you rather they did NOT vote to renew the law? If the law is not renewed, help me to understand
how this ends up being better for black people?


It is great to want to fight a legitimate war, but discounting those who would fight along side of you for the same purpose is non productive.

It would be case law similar to Brown v Board of Education. We should have gotten some sort of decision bolstering our right to vote due to birthright citizenship, than a law enacted. Some of these fossil politicians proclaim they voted to renew Civil Rights Legislation to racially mock and reinforce that we are a distinct separate group. If the Supreme Court finds that states were in violation of the Constitution, it could affect the legitimacy of a ton of elections and the legislation they enacted. It is like a bad forensic lab that processed DNA for thousands of cases.

No wonder JFK was take out and this approach taken to resolve this issue, leaving the issue undecided.

Unfortunately, I end up having to deal with them and their antiquated ideals that they are trying to push down to the next generation.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
We should have gotten

I sincerely in no way mean to be offensive, but I must insist we stop at ruminate a bit on
whether anything of any nature following these four words in a sentence are even worthy of discussion.

I truly mean no disrespect. But if it were not for what SHOULD HAVE happened not happening, I would be in the
middle of collecting an award for superior service as vaginal masseuse at an all girl college somewhere in Colombia. Or maybe
France.

But what I should have gotten, I didn't get, ain't about to get, and never will get at this point. Yet I carry on.
Please show me how this addresses CLEAR and PRESENT danger?

Given what indeed DID happen,

what should be be doing NOW?
 

BKF

Rising Star
Registered
Because his symbolism was and is dangerous. It means nothing in the end and black people keep falling for it. A black face in politics doesn't mean they will do shit for black people. In fact most of the time it means the opposite because they wouldn't be in such a position without kissing white ass
You obviously miss the entire point of the question. I never married the Obamas, so I do not need to divorce them.
I don't live my life through the Obamas. What they eat don't make me shit. If you are still holding onto the Obamas, then you are being static. No need for a divorce, just move the fuck on... Just like you would with friends/associates you have out grown
 
Last edited:

ghoststrike

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Actually, it was the other way around.

Kennedy played lip service, and never considered civil rights a priority.
LBJ, having had a history of working will underprivileged kids, was the one
who actually pushed for civil rights.

And, respectfully, to suggest MLK is not deserving of all the credit he receives belies a lack of depth of knowledge on your part.
"Fifty-seven years ago today, John F. Kennedy made one of his most important and enduring orations, an appeal to all Americans to accept civil rights as "a moral issue ... as old as the scriptures and as clear as the Constitution."

It was a welcome declaration for African Americans and other people of color who faced systemic racism and, in much of the South, segregation as a daily reality in American life.

But Kennedy's speech was long in coming.

While he had wrestled with the festering question of civil rights in his two and a half years in the White House, Kennedy had resisted putting the full weight of the presidency behind it, contending that it was a legal issue over which he could do little. Among many others, Martin Luther King chided Kennedy for not bringing "moral passion" to the cause of racial equality.

That changed on June 11, 1963, when Kennedy told his aides, "I want to go on television tonight."

"If an American, because his skin is dark … cannot enjoy [a] full and free life," the president said in his address that evening, "...then who among us would want to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?"

Why did Kennedy change course on civil rights? It came largely due to the influence and evolving view of his brother, Bobby Kennedy, who served as his attorney general and closest advisor.

Like his brother, Bobby Kennedy had seen no great urgency in the cause of racial equality. By his own admission, he "did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems" of African Americans. But in the spring of 1963 his perspective began to change.

By then, Martin Luther King had brought a direct-action civil rights campaign to Birmingham, Alabama, "the most thoroughly segregated city in the country," where demonstrators were seized by vicious police dogs and brutalized by fire hoses that blasted 700 pounds of pressurized water. Arrested and thrown into solitary confinement, King scrawled his seminal "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," from his small, dark cell, contributing to the slow awakening of the country to the urgency of civil rights.

But a deeper impression was made on Bobby Kennedy in New York City, where he met with a number of African American activists who gathered at his invitation. The group had been assembled by 38-year-old novelist James Baldwin, whose celebrated New Yorker piece titled "Letter from a Region in My Mind," claimed, "The Negroes of this country may never be able to rise to power, but they are well placed indeed to precipitate chaos and bring down the curtain of the American dream."

John Kennedy was among those who were taken by Baldwin's powerful essay, and later by a Time magazine cover story on Baldwin called "The Root of the Negro Problem." He encouraged his brother to draw out Baldwin on the matter -- and Baldwin and the "rowdy" group he put together at Bobby Kennedy's urging didn't hold back.

The gathering, in the Kennedy family's spacious Central Park South apartment, began civilly enough before Jerome Smith, a young Freedom Rider who had been arrested and hospitalized for the beatings he sustained, lit into the attorney general about the plight of African Americans. He "put it like it was," recalled actress and singer Lena Horne, "the plain, basic suffering of being a negro," becoming so worked up in his diatribe that he blurted out he wanted to vomit just being in the same room with Bobby Kennedy.

At least, that's what Kennedy heard. What Smith was trying to convey was that having to make a plea to the attorney general for rights that should intrinsically be his as an American citizen made him feel like vomiting. Nonetheless, the assault hit Kennedy between the eyes. As he turned to ignore Smith, the anger in the room hissed louder. Kennedy sat down, reeling, trying to collect himself.

The Irish were persecuted, too, he told the group. His grandfather had landed on American shores as the object of prejudice, and now, two generations later, his brother was president. As he took in Kennedy's words, Baldwin's scorn for his insularity was as palpable as his shock at his naivete; his family had been in America far longer, Baldwin countered, and they were still clinging to society's lowest rung.

Though the meeting lasted three hours, it stayed with Kennedy far longer. "After Baldwin," said Nicholas Katzenbach, Kennedy's deputy attorney general, "he was in absolute shock. Bobby expected to be an honorary black … he thought he knew so much -- and he didn't."

Initially, Kennedy seethed -- afterward, he excoriated Baldwin to others -- but as his anger cooled, his mind began to change, turning to empathy. In his own way, Bobby Kennedy knew what it was to grow up feeling inferior, in his case in the shadow of his formidable older brothers, and he talked about how he would feel if his children were on the other side of Jim Crow segregation.

If he had been born black in America, he told an aide several days after the New York meeting, his feelings wouldn't have differed much from those of Baldwin.

Afterward, he urged his brother to embrace civil rights as a moral issue. Though the bulk of President Kennedy's advisors counseled him against making his speech on June 11, claiming it was too soon, Bobby Kennedy was the lone exception. "He urged it, he felt it, he understood it, and he prevailed," deputy attorney general Burke Marshall said. "I don't think there was anyone in the cabinet -- except the president himself -- who felt that way on these issues, and the president got it from his brother."

It offers a lesson for today. Painful as it may have been, Bobby Kennedy listened to those whose everyday experiences as Americans were far different from his. He acknowledged his privilege, he opened his mind and his heart. And he worked toward making a difference.


At that crucial moment in history, he did."

Definitely a multi-faceted effort, both outside of congress (activists, organizers, etc.) and within Congress to get the CRA signed into law. Otherwise, it would have just remained a footnote in Kennedy's speech.

summer-2004-lbj-address-l.jpg

In an address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson requested quick action on a civil rights bill. (LBJ Library)

summer-2004-lbj-meet-civrts-leaders-l.jpg

Johnson meets with civil rights leaders in the Oval Office in January 1964. From left, Roy Wilkins, executive director of the NAACP; James Farmer, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality; Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League. (LBJ Library)
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
Definitely a multi-faceted effort, both outside of congress (activists, organizers, etc.) and within Congress to get the CRA signed into law. Otherwise, it would have just remained a footnote in Kennedy's speech.


In an address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson requested quick action on a civil rights bill. (LBJ Library)


Johnson meets with civil rights leaders in the Oval Office in January 1964. From left, Roy Wilkins, executive director of the NAACP; James Farmer, national director of the Congress of Racial Equality; Martin Luther King, Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League. (LBJ Library)

I took the liberty of removing the black and white photos from the quote.
Your fixation on the past is interesting.

Are you aware that the year is 2022, and the federal government is literally subject to an ongoing coup, as we are
writing these exchanges?

Hardly the time for coulda, shoulda, and woulda, if you ask me.

Honestly, you are making very little sense. What am I missing, without all the pics and articles from 500 years ago?
 

ghoststrike

Rising Star
Platinum Member
I took the liberty of removing the black and white photos from the quote.
Your fixation on the past is interesting.

Are you aware that the year is 2022, and the federal government is literally subject to an ongoing coup, as we are
writing these exchanges?

Hardly the time for coulda, shoulda, and woulda, if you ask me.

Honestly, you are making very little sense. What am I missing, without all the pics and articles from 500 years ago?

Relax, the sky isn't falling

I was referring to the LBJ vs JFK debate, that always comes up concerning who was most instrumental in getting CRA done. Simply pointing out that it was a multi-faceted effort inside and outside of Congress and the President.
 

xfactor

Rising Star
BGOL Investor


MLK and LBJ get all the credit for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights, but Kennedy was talking about it in his speeches years before. It was his ultimate sacrifice, that galvanize the nation to pass this legislation in honor of him. I suspect this may have played a part in his undoing as it did with President Lincoln.

They both were taken out because they went against the international banking cartels. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

xfactor

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Actually, it was the other way around.

Kennedy played lip service, and never considered civil rights a priority.
LBJ, having had a history of working will underprivileged kids, was the one
who actually pushed for civil rights.

And, respectfully, to suggest MLK is not deserving of all the credit he receives belies a lack of depth of knowledge on your part.
LBJ didn’t push for shit other than doing what he was told. He was another pawn that consistently referred to it as the “n-word bill” but he was also shrewd enough to know how to manipulate so-called blacks looking to integrate.

MLK Jr deserves credit for what exactly? Because he is one of the biggest frauds in modern history, which he knew but by the time he tried to fix the damage they took him out… along with his mother and brother. :smh:
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
A Supreme Court decision saying these voting practices are retroactively wrong, could call into question legislation passed and open up racists legislation that denied us governmental benefits such as housing loans to trillions in reparations.

This is why you see them passing laws or Constitutional Amendments rather than invalidating a practice through a Supreme Court decision.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
A Supreme Court decision saying these voting practices are retroactively wrong, could call into question legislation passed and open up racists legislation that denied us governmental benefits such as housing loans to trillions in reparations.

This is why you see them passing laws or Constitutional Amendments rather than invalidating a practice through a Supreme Court decision.

What plane of reality are you speaking of? Are you aware of the makeup of the current supreme court?

I have been subtly suggesting that your preoccupation with past ills and "solving" them via coulda, shoulda, woulda
hypothesizing does little to address the situation at hand.

Are you aware that there is a crisis at this very moment?

Or are you simply oblivious, and hell bent on concerning yourself with what someone should have done at some
point in time long, long ago?

Rome is burning. Playing the violin does not a fire extinguish.
 

notreally

Rising Star
Registered
Relax, the sky isn't falling

I was referring to the LBJ vs JFK debate, that always comes up concerning who was most instrumental in getting CRA done. Simply pointing out that it was a multi-faceted effort inside and outside of Congress and the President.

Not sure of how this is relevant, but, OK.
 
Top