Detailed history of racism in the Democratic Party

Sheeble Blog ^ | 11/8/18 | TheSheebler

[Carriage Hill]

It’s ok to post one of your own blog entries, but don’t excerpt it, print the whole darned thing.

[Responsibility2nd]

I just read that blog, and am very impressed with the research and the facts backing up each point.

I think Sheeb should also include details on the 21st Century version of the KKK. Its a mistake to think the Democrats have abandoned terrorism and violent tactics. And who are the para-military pro-fascist Democrats today?

Occupy Wall Street and Antifa to name but a few. And there are hundreds more loosely organized groups on college campuses across America and in anti-American cities like Portland and San Francisco.

One further point. It must be made perfectly clear that the American media has a direct role in perpetrating this violence and disorder in our society. Their support of the democratic agenda to destroy America is clearly evident in our country.

[M Kehoe]

LOL.

5.56mm

[Mr.Unique]

You’ve got a horrible memory.

Or a great imagination.

[old-ager]

If it’s a good article, I don’t mind giving the poster’s site a click.

I’d rather see the excerpt on the FR post.

Seems like an arbitrary matter of taste, but pounding people who excerpt their own stuff has taken on a trendy life of its own here.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[Hot Tabasco]

Or a great imagination.

Or a successful attempt in pointing out that you're not the literary critic you think you are but rather a nattering nabob. Go create your own blog then let US be the judge of you...........Sheesh!

[Mr.Unique]

Nice back tracking. Show a link where I was selling a book or writing lessons, then we’ll talk.

Otherwise, your claim is false and you should correct yourself.

[Carriage Hill]

Me either, but the FR Blog Policer has a different mindset. I often like visiting various blogs, just to see what they’re like, and with AdBlock Plus and Opera v56’s AdBlocker both working, I see no ads.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I went to the blog site, and I like the article. I will say that it covers ground previously covered by Dinesh D’Souza. But as a standalone article on it own terms, quite good. D’Souza makes the point clearly that the supposed “great switch” of Republicans which supposedly turned the Republican Party into the party of racism is malarky. Something like ½% of Democrat politicians switched; the rest died as Democrats in good standing with the party.

[YogicCowboy]

You are being excessively generous to call being a gratuitous and unproductive eGadfly an example of being a specialist.

[rlmorel]

Well done!

To anyone who pays attention, it isn't a challenge to conclude that the Left is far more deserving of accusations of racism, and it is due to the fundamental assumption on their part that various minorities or women cannot stand on their own two feet and be judged on their own ability or character as individuals and must instead be lumped into groups to be treated as a block. The bigotry of soft expectations is pervasive in the Left. The attraction to Leftist ideology is based on groupthink and a hive mentality, and the concept of the individual is anathema to them. So I think the subject you approach in the blog article is an appropriate one.

There was one paragraph that caught my attention:
"...This section will touch on a subject that has been controversial ever since its origins: modern-day welfare. Although it is certainly handy for those who need it, it can be morally deadening for those who continually receive it but don’t actually need it..."

When I read it, it made me pause, not because of the overall sentiment which I thought you were trying to express, because oddly, I disagreed with it in some way that wasn't initially apparent to me. As I read over it at speed, I slammed on the brakes and went back.

I thought it was the "handy for those who need it" phrase that might have tweaked my attention, but then realized it was the end of the sentence: "...it can be morally deadening for those who continually receive it but don’t actually need it..." that hooked me.

I don't disagree with it, but I felt it was fundamentally wrong in what it didn't express: that it is "morally deadening" for those who continually receive it and do need it.

Basically, I feel that it is morally deadening for everyone who gets it.

It is important, in my opinion, and for the same reason many of us decry socialism: There is no reward in it.

That sounds like a minor distinction, but I don't think it is. I think the reward that people get who can contribute and do their part, the self-worth that stems from that, being able to stand on their own feet, is completely underrated. I think that is the pervasive cancer in both welfare and socialism.

I am not opposed to the government helping people in real need. I just think "real need" should be better defined than it is right now.

Like I said, I didn't disagree with the direction of your statement, I thought it should have been more inclusive.

I am a big fan of both Thomas Sowell (my FreepPage has been like that since I read my first Thomas Sowell book Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to The Economy which is one of the books I have three versions of: Hardcopy, Kindle, and Audiobook. It is a book I give to people as a gift, I have found it so impressive in its...accessibility. When I looked through his bibliography to see which works I had read, I realized I have read seven of his books.

And I am also a fan of Dinesh D'Souza, which your blog article was redolent of. Looking at his bibliography, I was again startled to realize I have six of his books, and one of my favorite books is What's So Great About America? The passage from that book I just loved was this: "...Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans have television sets and microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the same perception of America that I witnessed in a friend of mine from Bombay who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States for nearly a decade. Finally I asked him, "Why are you so eager to come to America"? He replied, "Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat..."

But the think I appreciate most is his sentiment that America is unique because anyone can be an American. I don't recall his exact wording, but he stated, you can become a citizen of France, Germany, or nearly every other country in the world, but you can't really say once you do that you are "French" or you are "German", because people who are French or German would find the sound of that faintly absurd. But in America, you can say you are American no matter who you are, and your fellow Americans would nod their heads in agreement. I thought it was an interesting and incisive way to frame what it is to be an American.

I appreciated that your article was very much in line with the thoughts of those two men, Sowell and D'Souza, and enjoyed it.

The fact that many here read your blog and thought it would do well as a bookmarked reference for future use is evidence enough that you realized your goal. Nicely done, and welcome to Free Republic.

[rlmorel]

I thought it was quite good as well.

[rlmorel]

I think the objection is that this is a site where many members pay money, not like many forums out there where anyone can go in and do what they please.

It can become uncivil on Free Republic, I have been uncivil myself, but one of the things that stands out and makes me really appreciate this site is the general restraint and self control as conservatives so we aren't overrun with profanity and obscenity. It isn't that way everywhere.

There is a concept called "The Tragedy of The Commons" that illustrates to me why Free Republic is different: If nobody "owns" something but everyone uses it, it will deteriorate and degenerate over time. The fact that so many on Free Republic have a form of "ownership" in the site due to paid membership, there are probably more who view (fairly or unfairly) the posting of threads that link to blogs for the sole purpose of driving clicks to that blog site.

I don't believe The Sheebler is one of those, but we had someone just last month that I was astonished at, and I am no Blog Pimp Policeman. Check out this screenshot I took:

Looking at this, you can see why some people who may donate up to $1000 a year take exception to someone like this user deandg99 (no longer active, I believe). That was just a bit brazen. I mean, look at the timing of the posting of those threads...and not one single answer to a comment that I could find anywhere. This person was seriously playing that aspect of it. I was even offended by it.

Anyway, that is where I think much of that angst stems from, so some people do keep any eye out for it, sometimes overaggressively IMO, but you can see where it it warranted.

[The Sheebler]

Wow, thank you very much for the kind words, your input is appreciated.

You know, the line that you mentioned:

“...This section will touch on a subject that has been controversial ever since its origins: modern-day welfare. Although it is certainly handy for those who need it, it can be morally deadening for those who continually receive it but don’t actually need it...”

in my mind, as I was writing, I just assumed that the people who really need the help would work towards individualism and eventually stop requesting the assistance.

I do agree with your assessment on being independent, it is underrated and I would even argue that a lot of people on the right and the left could be grouped up into either an independent or dependent category.

With that being said, I remember when I was younger, I had started a small construction company but needed a place to stay while I got on my feet. Luckily I had some assistance, my dad let me stay with him for roughly 1 year until my business had grown enough and I saved enough money to venture out on my own. Had that temporary assistance not of been there, I’m not sure of what the outcome would have been (I may of figured out something else). But I do know that with it I was able to pick myself up and walk on my own. I’ve been 100% independent ever since.

I’m sure we probably agree on this, I just wanted to explain my thoughts.

[trebb]

Welcome to FR - please don’t forget to check out the “Donate” buttons....

[rlmorel]

I think I gathered that sentiment, I believe we do agree.

When I went to college, I got help from the government (GI Bill) and my parents, who let me live at home rent-free while I commuted to school, though they were unable to contribute to the cost of my education beyond that...but it was certainly enough.

I did hold down a job, but college would have been far more difficult without that.

Getting support and assistance from people is not a bad thing. Depending on it over time, is.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

needed a place to stay while I got on my feet. Luckily I had some assistance my dad let me stay with him for roughly 1 year until my business had grown

Getting support and assistance from people is not a bad thing. Depending on it over time, is.

We all start out as totally dependent babies. We have to have help getting started - lots and lots of it.

Socialists love to abuse the language by distorting the meanings of words. Perhaps the biggest example which should be better known is that in the 1920s (according to Safire’s New Political Dictionary) they totally inverted the meaning of “liberals” from “people who belong on FreeRepublic” to “people who have no business on FreeRepublic.”

And another such word is “compassion.” “Liberals” use the word “compassion” when they mean something entirely different. In The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky pointed out that “compassion” means “suffering with.” When a family member helps out big time, they suffer along with you. When the government helps out, who suffers along with the person in need? No compassion is involved, at all. None. The relationship is entirely different.

[rlmorel]

That is one of the things about the Left that makes me grind my teeth, is their manipulation and appropriation of Language (and symbols)

I am old enough where I simply refuse to play along.

Leftists are Leftists, not Liberals. (I used liberal as shorthand, but a Freeper gave me a good argument for not giving in)

Homosexuality is Homosexuality, not Gay.

Dan Bongino (and others) note that this manipulation of lexicon by the Left has a purpose. If they keep changing the meaning, they can trap you into using an “outdated and insensitive” description eventually.

I don’t give a damn anymore.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

And I am also a fan of Dinesh D'Souza, which your blog article was redolent of.

. . . and it is precisely that “redolence” which makes critiquing the article problematic. Ignore that, and the article is terrific. Assume that the writer has read D’Souza, and negative thoughts arise.

My bottom line is that the article is good, but could have been written years ago - and the earlier it had been written, the better it would have been.