One of the 3 Oklahoma thrill killers hates white people. How is this not a hate crime?

[Anonymous]

Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of these posts are sickeningly glib about horrible suffering inflicted on human beings simply because another human being has felt like it. Who cares what races or cultures are involved? Nobody should ever have to suffer because someone else thinks they don't deserve to live unharmed or else because they think it would be amusing to hurt or kill them. Absolutely nobody. End of story.

I completely agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Black, white, whatever, the main reason this crime happened was a total lack of parenting and love of thug culture. Police said these kids were basically parenting themselves and idolized a gangster lifestyle. This is nothing new. It happens way too frequently throughout the country and no one (not even Al Sharpton) seems that outraged about it. How many inner city youth, or random joggers, or elderly WW2 vets have to die before we wake up and realize that the thug culture pervasive in many young males today has got to stop. Idolizing guns, demoralizing women, engaging in violence, dropping out of school, being absintee fathers, etc is not ok. Leaders on all sides really need to stand up and say enough is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

Nobody claimed that the Southern Strategy caused blacks to become Dems. That's totally backwards. The strategy used the fact that blacks were overwhelmingly Dem and that civil rights was identified with Dems to grab the anti-civil rights voters for the GOP.

To even talk about Dems and Reps of the 40's and 50's, when people like Rockefeller and Javits were Republicans and Eastland and Thurmond were Dems, as though they were the same parties we have today is silly. It was a different world; each party had a liberal wing and a conservative wing, with alliances based on history rather than ideology. The writer of the story linked above either knows no history, or purposely misstates it, when she identifies the parties of those days as liberal and conservative; that just was not the way politics worked then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

[Anonymous]

Wilson is typical of lots of liberals--talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

[Anonymous]

^^^ When I say progressive sites, Teaching American History comes from one side of things. It's not the be-all-end-all. That's the problem with all these things - they ALL have their points of view.

One of the reason I trust The Blaze is because they are VERY well-researched, and don't really care if you believe them - they encourage you to research for yourself

Sorry to be tough on me? Some of the most arrogant people live in this area - welcome to the flock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wilson is typical of lots of liberals--talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

Precisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

[Anonymous]

^^The logical conclusion of conservative bubble think.

They can't even read actual, unedited letters between two historical figures because conservative media has not told them that it is OK or what to think about them.

[Anonymous]

name me people who are "defending" these killers (outside their family)? what shows are analyzing this case saying that anything regarding this killing was "justified"? anyone on msnbc, cnn?

stop this desperate attempt to draw similarities between this shooting at trayvon. they arent the same by any stretch of the imagination and for some of you it took the mouth pieces you parrot (limbaugh, hannity, malkin, etc) to think of any and all the arguments you are making today about this.

the three guys are arrested, they are sick, and will go to trial. nobody in their right mind is arguing that what they did was justified. if by any chance the man killed was targeted because he was while, lets hope some extra charged are added on that for good measure. thats the end of the story.

you guys are creating this narrative and story on something that doesnt need your spinning and nonsense.

[Anonymous]

"We hope that by going to Washington by the thousands, sitting in the halls of Congress if necessary and in the offices of recalcitrant congressmen, we will be able to arouse a conscience of the Senate so that the coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right-wing northern Republicans will not prove to be the legislative incinerator that will again burn to ashes any possible civil rights bill."

- Martin Luther King Jr., on the eve of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why is there barely any media coverage on this? Seems to me if someone posts that they hate white people and then go and kills a random white person for no reason, that is a hate crime. If someone posted they hated gay people or black people, and then went and killed a random gay guy or African-American woman for the thrill of it, that would constitute a hate crime, no? Just wondering cause it seems like we should be outraged by hate crimes on the whole. And even white males can be subject of that but no one wants to talk about it. Why?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/#ixzz2chtAj4cJ

Barely any media coverage? I saw it this morning on at least one of my usual news sites (Fox, CNN, MSNBC). I'd say that's fairly mainstream. I don't exactly spend my days with my ears pressed to the fringes of the internet looking for under reported news.

Of course it is a hate crime. Haters gonna hate. Assholes and idiots have all kinds of bizarre and terrible motives for the awful things they do. So we have a racist black kid here.... alert the media? Really? What difference does it make to the dead guy or the rest of us if the motive was racial hate? Does it make you feel better to know that black people can commit hate crimes too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

And that's one man's opinion