No.  It's racism. Many of the college educated whites in the democratic party believe it is their duty to solve the disparity between blacks and whites. Why? Because they think blacks can't do it on their own. That's racism. 

No, it's not.  It would be racism if it came from a belief that blacks are inferior to whites.  But that's not the reason for those programs.  The stated reason for those programs is that blacks are disadvantaged by poverty and racism.  You can argue with their reasons all you want, but those are their stated reasons.

---

It does and it did. What is wrong with you, dude? Do you challenge anything you are told?

---

It does and it did. What is wrong with you, dude? Do you challenge anything you are told?

I'm not arguing with you.  I'm simply telling you why I am correct and you are not.

---

LBJ helped stonewall civil rights stuff for decades, then, all of the sudden, the dude just becomes a civil rights champion? Same with Robert Byrd. Have you actually read anything about how they viewed blacks? LBJ said of Thurgood Marshall, "when I appoint a [BLEEP] to the bench, I want everybody to know he's a [BLEEP]." Does that sound like a guy who cares about the poor? Or is that a racist politician that knows how take advantage of public sentiment? This holds true for many of these political opportunists who were.... actually.... RACIST. The design of welfare is a trap, and the evidence is obvious if you look at the results. Even though they can't find audio of LBJ and his famous line, it fits perfectly within his character.

---

You don't know enough of what you speak to declare yourself correct.

---

If you have any integrity, you're googling confirmation of your opinion (that's wrong). 

Take some time. Settle down in it for a while, and tread off the beaten path. Read what these guys said. Look into their motivations and aspirations. Find what their writers said about them. Try to learn what isn't reported. While you're at it, read about the Cold War, and the games that were being played between the Soviets and the US. Read about the goals of each nation. Read something like Color, Communism, and Common Sense. It's free. It's on the internet. Learn about the push for communism and the fight against it. I mean, you could even read about McCarthyism, and look at who was being accused of communism. You could maybe wander down the road and spend some time looking at declassified KGB files (after the Soviet Union fell), and see if the people who were attacking McCarthy were connected to the Soviets at all. Look how the dominoes fell as McCarthyism came to a close. When you start to unpack it all, you see that there is this whirlpool of ambitions that pushed and pulled powerful people in all manner of directions.  

I know SO much more about you on this subject. Don't take that as a brag. Truth be told, I am barely scratching the surface. I'd love to learn more and have my positions challenged, because there is a TON I don't know. However, I know this: I don't give two [BLEEP] about a politicians stated goal or the way it is characterized by leftist institutions. Subterfuge was the rule in the 60's and 70's, not the exception. So, when you reference stated goal as proof of your "knowledge," it's just confirmation that you lack context and probably don't know what you're talking about.

---

If you have any integrity, you're googling confirmation of your opinion (that's wrong). 

Take some time. Settle down in it for a while, and tread off the beaten path. Read what these guys said. Look into their motivations and aspirations. Find what their writers said about them. Try to learn what isn't reported. While you're at it, read about the Cold War, and the games that were being played between the Soviets and the US. Read about the goals of each nation. Read something like Color, Communism, and Common Sense. It's free. It's on the internet. Learn about the push for communism and the fight against it. I mean, you could even read about McCarthyism, and look at who was being accused of communism. You could maybe wander down the road and spend some time looking at declassified KGB files (after the Soviet Union fell), and see if the people who were attacking McCarthy were connected to the Soviets at all. Look how the dominoes fell as McCarthyism came to a close. When you start to unpack it all, you see that there is this whirlpool of ambitions that pushed and pulled powerful people in all manner of directions.  

I know SO much more about you on this subject. Don't take that as a brag. Truth be told, I am barely scratching the surface. I'd love to learn more and have my positions challenged, because there is a TON I don't know. However, I know this: I don't give two [BLEEP] about a politicians stated goal or the way it is characterized by leftist institutions. Subterfuge was the rule in the 60's and 70's, not the exception. So, when you reference stated goal as proof of your "knowledge," it's just confirmation that you lack context and probably don't know what you're talking about.

I am aware that some politicians who supported social programs in the 60s (and later) did make racist statements.  Some people who were opposed to those social programs also made racist statements.  You don't seem to think I am aware of these things.  I have a degree in History from Indiana University.  I've studied history for the last 40 years.  I am aware of these things.  In your case, I think you have gone down some internet rabbit hole and become thoroughly indoctrinated in a particular political belief and backed it up by cherry picking some historical facts.  Your beliefs have been spoon fed to you.  Not by anyone else.  You've done it to yourself. 

I'm not even sure what we're talking about any more.  If I have time in the next day or two, I'll go back and try to figure out what we were discussing in the first place.  But this is getting way off track.

---

Good to know. What did you study?

Also, facts are facts. When we are talking about being spoon fed information, that's pretty much what happens at the University. I didn't start diversifying my knowledge until a few years after graduation. It's not so much a rabbit hole as much as it's a slow accumulation of knowledge that starts to challenge other bits of knowledge that I accepted without question.

---

No.  It's racism. Many of the college educated whites in the democratic party believe it is their duty to solve the disparity between blacks and whites. Why? Because they think blacks can't do it on their own. That's racism. 

No, it's not.  It would be racism if it came from a belief that blacks are inferior to whites.  But that's not the reason for those programs.  The stated reason for those programs is that blacks are disadvantaged by poverty and racism.  You can argue with their reasons all you want, but those are their stated reasons.

....   wow.

---

If you have any integrity, you're googling confirmation of your opinion (that's wrong). 

Take some time. Settle down in it for a while, and tread off the beaten path. Read what these guys said. Look into their motivations and aspirations. Find what their writers said about them. Try to learn what isn't reported. While you're at it, read about the Cold War, and the games that were being played between the Soviets and the US. Read about the goals of each nation. Read something like Color, Communism, and Common Sense. It's free. It's on the internet. Learn about the push for communism and the fight against it. I mean, you could even read about McCarthyism, and look at who was being accused of communism. You could maybe wander down the road and spend some time looking at declassified KGB files (after the Soviet Union fell), and see if the people who were attacking McCarthy were connected to the Soviets at all. Look how the dominoes fell as McCarthyism came to a close. When you start to unpack it all, you see that there is this whirlpool of ambitions that pushed and pulled powerful people in all manner of directions.  

I know SO much more about you on this subject. Don't take that as a brag. Truth be told, I am barely scratching the surface. I'd love to learn more and have my positions challenged, because there is a TON I don't know. However, I know this: I don't give two [BLEEP] about a politicians stated goal or the way it is characterized by leftist institutions. Subterfuge was the rule in the 60's and 70's, not the exception. So, when you reference stated goal as proof of your "knowledge," it's just confirmation that you lack context and probably don't know what you're talking about.

I am aware that some politicians who supported social programs in the 60s (and later) did make racist statements.  Some people who were opposed to those social programs also made racist statements.  You don't seem to think I am aware of these things.  I have a degree in History from Indiana University.  I've studied history for the last 40 years.  I am aware of these things.  In your case, I think you have gone down some internet rabbit hole and become thoroughly indoctrinated in a particular political belief and backed it up by cherry picking some historical facts.  Your beliefs have been spoon fed to you.  Not by anyone else.  You've done it to yourself. 

I'm not even sure what we're talking about any more.  If I have time in the next day or two, I'll go back and try to figure out what we were discussing in the first place.  But this is getting way off track.

What % of the black vote did George Wallace get in his asrt run for governor?

---

Good to know. What did you study?

Also, facts are facts. When we are talking about being spoon fed information, that's pretty much what happens at the University. I didn't start diversifying my knowledge until a few years after graduation. It's not so much a rabbit hole as much as it's a slow accumulation of knowledge that starts to challenge other bits of knowledge that I accepted without question.

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

---

That's weird, since all white people are racist then even those "just left of center" liberals are acting on their racism as well.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Good to know. What did you study?

Also, facts are facts. When we are talking about being spoon fed information, that's pretty much what happens at the University. I didn't start diversifying my knowledge until a few years after graduation. It's not so much a rabbit hole as much as it's a slow accumulation of knowledge that starts to challenge other bits of knowledge that I accepted without question.

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

In other news, they're sending white people to re-education camps in corporate America and teaching critical race theory slash 1619 in schools.  

Frog....  boiling water....  you know the deal.

---

Teachers at posh NYC school release 8-page anti-racism manifesto, sparks uproar: report

The wide-ranging faculty demands include:

• Hiring 12 full-time diversity officers, and multiple  psychologists to support students "coping with race-based traumatic stress." 
  
  
• Assigning a staffer dedicated to black students who have "complaints or face disciplinary action," and a full-time advocate to help black kids "navigate a predominantly white institution."
  
  
• Paying the student debt of black staffers upon hiring them.
  
  
• Requiring courses that focus on "Black liberation" and "challenges to white supremacy." 
  
  
• Compensating any student of color who appears in Dalton promotional material.
  
  
• Abolishing high-level academic courses by 2023 if the performance of black students is not on par with non-blacks. 
  
  
• Requiring "anti-racism" statements from all staffers.
  
  
• Overhauling the entire curriculum, reading lists and student plays to reflect diversity and social justice themes.
  
  
• Divesting from companies that "criminalize or dehumanize" black people, including private prisons and tech firms that manufacture police equipment or weapons.
  
  
• Donating 50 percent of all fundraising dollars to NYC public schools if Dalton is not representative of the city in terms of gender, race, socioeconomic background, and immigration status by 2025.
  

---

You're right in your first sentence, but discrimination itself isn't always bad (nor prejudice or bias either) while racism probably is.

Your last statement though, way off. Democrat social programs come from a belief in the inferiority of minorities in general, blacks in particular. "Po' ol' darkies cain't take care of theyselves" and "Pass this and the Nwords will vote for us for 200 years" and such. Completely based in paternalism and self interest.

No, your last paragraph is wrong.  Democrats belief in social programs doesn't come from a belief that minorities or poor people are inferior and can't take care of themselves.  Democrats believe that minorities or poor people are disadvantaged and and need government help in order to a) get out of poverty and b) enjoy more equal opportunity.  I'm not endorsing such programs; I am only telling you what the Democrats say is the reason for those programs.  And unless you are a mind reader, I think we should go with what they say is their motivation.  They're not saying minorities are biologically disadvantaged; they are saying minorities are disadvantaged by their poverty and the environment in which they live.

Why do you so unquestioningly accept any elected official's stated motivation as completely truthful?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

No, your last paragraph is wrong.  Democrats belief in social programs doesn't come from a belief that minorities or poor people are inferior and can't take care of themselves.  Democrats believe that minorities or poor people are disadvantaged and and need government help in order to a) get out of poverty and b) enjoy more equal opportunity.  I'm not endorsing such programs; I am only telling you what the Democrats say is the reason for those programs.  And unless you are a mind reader, I think we should go with what they say is their motivation.  They're not saying minorities are biologically disadvantaged; they are saying minorities are disadvantaged by their poverty and the environment in which they live.

Why do you so unquestioningly accept any elected official's stated motivation as completely truthful?

That's a fair point. Just had 4 years of lies from the US president and those who voted for him don't even care

---

Good to know. What did you study?

Also, facts are facts. When we are talking about being spoon fed information, that's pretty much what happens at the University. I didn't start diversifying my knowledge until a few years after graduation. It's not so much a rabbit hole as much as it's a slow accumulation of knowledge that starts to challenge other bits of knowledge that I accepted without question.

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

The article was clearly written regarding leftist liberals/radicals even if the author simply referred to the as "the left". That's the problem most people have- they can't (or won't) distinguish the radical left (progressives and neo-marxists) from the traditional left, nor do they distinguish the far right (hardline conservatives with some of the more extreme religious groups, neocon?) from the traditional right. Then you have the mixed bag of crazy. 

You're trying to have a discussion about traditional democrats/liberals and the rest of us are talking about leftist liberals. It doesn't matter if, as you say and I partially agree, the majority of the left isn't racist when the ones who are racist are making the most noise and actually being endorsed by politicians by their silence. Those riots in Portland, Seattle, Wisconsin and other locations should have been firmly denounced by Biden as a presidential candidate, by Harris as VP candidate, and the mayors and governors of all those cities and states but they said nothing. Crickets. 

Until the two parties rid themselves of the radicals on both sides they will continue to be hijacked for a cause that isn't even theirs.

---

I studied mostly American history and Ancient history.  

My original comment was, ordinary liberals, not far-left radicals, but the mass of liberals just to the left of center, are not racists and the policies they espouse are not racist, even though we may not like those policies.  

Personally, I think a lot of the policies liberals espouse are discriminatory, and for that reason very bad policy.  But racism and discrimination are not the same thing, because the policies they espouse are not based on the belief that one group is superior or inferior to the other; the policies they espouse are based on the belief that one group needs help to overcome external disadvantages and achieve equality.  

Then somehow, we went down a rabbit hole about whether LBJ was a racist and whether the Civil Rights Act was supported by racists, and whether the Democratic Party is historically more racist than the Republican Party, which is so far off topic from what I was talking about, that I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I don't think it's relevant, and it's a waste of my energy.  

That's like a lot of discussions on this political message board- people argue smaller and smaller points and go way off track from the original thing they were discussing.  And eventually it gets into name-calling and personal attacks as the participants get frustrated with being unable to "win."

The article was clearly written regarding leftist liberals/radicals even if the author simply referred to the as "the left". That's the problem most people have- they can't (or won't) distinguish the radical left (progressives and neo-marxists) from the traditional left, nor do they distinguish the far right (hardline conservatives with some of the more extreme religious groups, neocon?) from the traditional right. Then you have the mixed bag of crazy. 

You're trying to have a discussion about traditional democrats/liberals and the rest of us are talking about leftist liberals. It doesn't matter if, as you say and I partially agree, the majority of the left isn't racist when the ones who are racist are making the most noise and actually being endorsed by politicians by their silence. Those riots in Portland, Seattle, Wisconsin and other locations should have been firmly denounced by Biden as a presidential candidate, by Harris as VP candidate, and the mayors and governors of all those cities and states but they said nothing. Crickets. 

Until the two parties rid themselves of the radicals on both sides they will continue to be hijacked for a cause that isn't even theirs.

It doesn’t help when moderate liberals won’t separate themselves from the radical left. They remain silent because popular culture and the MSM are the true shot-callers of the left. 

Does anyone honestly believe a democrat would call for dialogue and understanding if Twitter-verse were demanding blood and fire? Yeah…

---

The article was clearly written regarding leftist liberals/radicals even if the author simply referred to the as "the left". That's the problem most people have- they can't (or won't) distinguish the radical left (progressives and neo-marxists) from the traditional left, nor do they distinguish the far right (hardline conservatives with some of the more extreme religious groups, neocon?) from the traditional right. Then you have the mixed bag of crazy. 

You're trying to have a discussion about traditional democrats/liberals and the rest of us are talking about leftist liberals. It doesn't matter if, as you say and I partially agree, the majority of the left isn't racist when the ones who are racist are making the most noise and actually being endorsed by politicians by their silence. Those riots in Portland, Seattle, Wisconsin and other locations should have been firmly denounced by Biden as a presidential candidate, by Harris as VP candidate, and the mayors and governors of all those cities and states but they said nothing. Crickets. 

Until the two parties rid themselves of the radicals on both sides they will continue to be hijacked for a cause that isn't even theirs.

It doesn’t help when moderate liberals won’t separate themselves from the radical left. They remain silent because popular culture and the MSM are the true shot-callers of the left. 

Does anyone honestly believe a democrat would call for dialogue and understanding if Twitter-verse were demanding blood and fire? Yeah…

I think the moderate left and the far left will separate now that Trump is out of the picture.  Hatred of Trump was a unifying force, and the moderate left wanted to keep the far left on their side so they could win the election.

---

It doesn’t help when moderate liberals won’t separate themselves from the radical left. They remain silent because popular culture and the MSM are the true shot-callers of the left. 

Does anyone honestly believe a democrat would call for dialogue and understanding if Twitter-verse were demanding blood and fire? Yeah…

I think the moderate left and the far left will separate now that Trump is out of the picture.  Hatred of Trump was a unifying force, and the moderate left wanted to keep the far left on their side so they could win the election.

To some degree, but the wagons won't be completely unhitched. I watched an interview with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm after Biden picked her to lead the Department of Energy. She ended the interview with praise for the ideals of Bernie Sanders and AOC.

---

I think the moderate left and the far left will separate now that Trump is out of the picture.  Hatred of Trump was a unifying force, and the moderate left wanted to keep the far left on their side so they could win the election.

To some degree, but the wagons won't be completely unhitched. I watched an interview with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm after Biden picked her to lead the Department of Energy. She ended the interview with praise for the ideals of Bernie Sanders and AOC.

The ideals are fine.  It's the practicalities that suck.

---

To some degree, but the wagons won't be completely unhitched. I watched an interview with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm after Biden picked her to lead the Department of Energy. She ended the interview with praise for the ideals of Bernie Sanders and AOC.

The ideals are fine.  It's the practicalities that suck.

The horde that loves the Squad doesn't care or even recognize that point, and they are now the force of the Democrat Party. Pressure is already coming and Kamala is on their side. Joe is going to go along to.stay in office.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato