Sheila Jackson Lee: "I'm a Freed Slave"

#27
#27
I love mapping, but I wonder what people consider when drawing districts, other than who gets an advantage in elections. How does one weigh ethnicity, race, culture, economics, etc.?
 
#29
#29
And then it was actually the reason that we fought the [American] Revolution in the 16th century — was to get away from that kind of onerous crown, if you will.

Rick Perry
Click to expand...

Nevermind Perry's mistake regarding the time period, but when did Rick Perry ever form part of any "we" that fought the British in order to establish independence for the American colonies?

Wait, which rhetorical turns-of-phrase are permissible and which are not?
 
#30
#30
therealUT said:
Nevermind Perry's mistake regarding the time period, but when did Rick Perry ever form part of any "we" that fought the British in order to establish independence for the American colonies?

Wait, which rhetorical turns-of-phrase are permissible and which are not?
Click to expand...
Good point. We and I are slightly different though. Disagree?
 
#31
#31
tim said:
Good point. We and I are slightly different though. Disagree?
Click to expand...

"We" entails "I". Sure, there is the "Royal We" which is merely rhetorical. It is not proper, but is is allowed as a rhetorical device. Anyone listening to Jackson (who, I admit, is an idiot), understood she was speaking rhetorically. Thus, why is the "I" that is entailed in the rhetorical "We" allowed for Perry, but the "I" that is used rhetorically by Jackson is subject to criticism?
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
"We" entails "I". Sure, there is the "Royal We" which is merely rhetorical. It is not proper, but is is allowed as a rhetorical device. Anyone listening to Jackson (who, I admit, is an idiot), understood she was speaking rhetorically. Thus, why is the "I" that is entailed in the rhetorical "We" allowed for Perry, but the "I" that is used rhetorically by Jackson is subject to criticism?
Click to expand...

Because we disagree politically with one and not the other. Some of the obvious stuff slips right by you, huh?
 
#35
#35
5377538.jpg
 
#37
#37
volmaverick said:
She seems to forget that it was the Republicans who freed her!
Click to expand...

She's an idiot, but it's amazing to me how many people make this falacious argument. Yes, it was the Republicans, but they were the liberals of the day and this argument is atrocious history as it ignores the reasons for the black vote switching to the Democrats in 1936 and the Southern Democrats switching to Republican in the last three decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
Unimane said:
She's an idiot, but it's amazing to me how many people make this falacious argument. Yes, it was the Republicans, but they were the liberals of the day and this argument is atrocious history as it ignores the reasons for the black vote switching to the Democrats in 1936 and the Southern Democrats switching to Republican in the last three decades.
Click to expand...

Thought you might be interested in this:

If Eisenhower's 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson," it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators -- all of them Democrats.

Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.

The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton's mentor. Gore was "Al Jazeera" Gore's father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon's impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the '50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the '60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ's Great Society programs. In the '90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

These "Southern oppressors" were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (in public). If Republicans had a racist "Southern strategy," it didn't work on the racists.
 
#40
#40
Unimane said:
She's an idiot, but it's amazing to me how many people make this falacious argument. Yes, it was the Republicans, but they were the liberals of the day and this argument is atrocious history as it ignores the reasons for the black vote switching to the Democrats in 1936 and the Southern Democrats switching to Republican in the last three decades.
Click to expand...

Ok so southerners were democrats? Then the past 3 decades switched to republican. Why is that? Somebody on here told me a while back that southerners were republicans for YEARS.
 
#41
#41
Great role model for black Americans..That mindset is the problem right there.Stupid beech...
 
#44
#44
golfballs said:
Are you in the 3rd district?
Click to expand...

No I am in the 1st.
It is strong republican. The Repubs have held this congress seat for over 100 years.
People in the 1st vote for the R instead of person. we could run LG and throw a R beside his name and he would win by a landslide.
 
#45
#45
Gramps said:
No I am in the 1st.
It is strong republican. The Repubs have held this congress seat for over 100 years.
People in the 1st vote for the R instead of person. we could run LG and throw a R beside his name and he would win by a landslide.
Click to expand...

Zach Wamp was one of the only republican member of an anti-gerrymandering caucus during the Republican majority all those years in the house. He hated it
 
#46
#46
golfballs said:
Zach Wamp was one of the only republican member of an anti-gerrymandering caucus during the Republican majority all those years in the house. He hated it
Click to expand...

That I did not know.I am opposed to gerrymandering. IMO, that is the reason we keep sending the same old group back to DC.

Zack's son ran for his old seat, lost in the primary.
 
#47
#47
Yes, she's an idiot but somebody had to vote her in, what's that make them ?, therein lies the problem with this country today.
 
#48
#48
McDad said:
Thought you might be interested in this:

If Eisenhower's 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, "Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson," it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators -- all of them Democrats.

Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.

The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton's mentor. Gore was "Al Jazeera" Gore's father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon's impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the '50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the '60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ's Great Society programs. In the '90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.

These "Southern oppressors" were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (in public). If Republicans had a racist "Southern strategy," it didn't work on the racists.
Click to expand...

Gore also didn't sign the Southern Manifesto and was vulnerable in later elections because he did promote civil rights. LBJ was a noted promoter of civil rights and was the main force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your history is a bit incomplete.

Still, it is very poor history and would cause one to get laughed out of any serious discussion with anyone in the academic field to not note the switch of the Southern Democrats to Republicans, mostly as a result of LBJs passage of the 1964 bill (Hence his statement that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation as he signed the bill.).
 
#49
#49
Coach Grizz said:
Ok so southerners were democrats? Then the past 3 decades switched to republican. Why is that? Somebody on here told me a while back that southerners were republicans for YEARS.
Click to expand...

Southerners were Democrats for years, particularly in response to the Reconstruction policies of the Republicans. The switch began in the early 70s as a response to JFK and LBJ pushing civil rights and Nixon adopting the Southern Strategy to take advantage of Southern anger towards the leadership of the Democratic Party. The transition was pretty much completed with the 1994 elections.
 
#50
#50
Unimane said:
Gore also didn't sign the Southern Manifesto and was vulnerable in later elections because he did promote civil rights. LBJ was a noted promoter of civil rights and was the main force behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Your history is a bit incomplete.

Still, it is very poor history and would cause one to get laughed out of any serious discussion with anyone in the academic field to not note the switch of the Southern Democrats to Republicans, mostly as a result of LBJs passage of the 1964 bill (Hence his statement that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation as he signed the bill.).
Click to expand...

I thought you might find my post interesting. If you didn't find it interesting, my fault for assuming.

A few follow up points to consider:
1. You said, "Yes, it was the Republicans, but they were the liberals of the day..." However, every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.
The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats.
2. It is accurate that Gore Sr didn't sign the Southern Manifesto in 1956. He wasn't voted out of office until 1971. He may have been 'vulnerable' but remained in the Senate for another 14 years. Also of note, he also voted against the famous LBJ legislation of 1964.
3. LBJ gutted, as a senator, the 1957 Civil Rights Act. He pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act doing a 180-flip on civil rights as president.

Full disclosure, I am not related to any of these people and have no vested interest in their legacy. I do have an interest in learning new things and I appreciate your post because it made me curious to do some research.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top