Civil Rights protests are always unpopular, but almost always win in the end.

DEMOCRAT domer76 said:
lol All the Democrats you mentioned from those eras were conservatives. Now, they're still conservative, but they're called Republicans. That's been explained to you morons numerous times, but it still hasn't sunk in. No surprises there. Change your reading material, illiterate, or have a 10 year old explain it all to you. We're well aware of your lousy comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that repeating a falsehood makes it correct?

Loser. :rofl2:
 
cawacko said:
I feel the government, and the President, has no place in telling the NFL what to do.

You didn't answer what the goal of Kaepernick's protest was and if focusing on the President helps or hinders that
Click to expand...

Kaepernicks goal and his protest hasn't changed.

Only those who are against his protest think mentioning dump hinders it.

If dump hadn't inserted himself, there would be no need to deflect to hindrance.

Besides, we don't need, want or support anyone who wants us to protest with conditions.
 
Amadeus said:
You're comparing the physical act of kneeling, and not the protest, to two other protests. Are you being intentionally disingenuous or are you simply stupid?

The players are using their sport to protest, are doing so peacefully, and with minimal (basically zero) disruption. Seems like you are getting a bargain compared to the 1960s.
Click to expand...
did you read your OP?
No I am not comparing the act -I am comparing the protest, I used "kneeling' to denote the protest.

and my point stands that this protest is not going to become more popular -unlike the Iraq and Vietnam protest that picked up popular support over time
 
Public Opinion of Civil Rights Protests in 1966

f03nphrq5vnz.png
 
Thing1 said:
You miss the point.

The form of protest doesn't matter - any protest for equal rights has generally been met w/ fierce resistance, throughout not just our history but world history.

You're on the wrong side of that history.

As I always say - progressive thought always prevails in the end.
Click to expand...
No, I addressed that point,and I can guaranteed you this protest is not picking up popular support
 
God bless America said:
Perhaps you could provide some actual history, so I can evaluate the supposed perspective you claim that I lack.

Or perhaps you cannot.

Loser. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Elle Magazine had a headline, so it must be true. lol

Read some fucking history, boytard, I can’t teach you everything. Apparently, NOBODY can teach you much of anything.
 
God bless America said:
Are you able to successfully demonstrate that your assessment is correct?

I doubt it, but try. It will amuse me, and keep you off the street corner.

Loser. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Elle Magazine headline cited as “proof”.

Hell, I’m still getting a good chuckle out of that cretinous gem! Just as the pathetic laughability of “Is Vietnam in America?” was just wearing off. Thanks, God Bless Tards, you are truly the gift that keeps on giving!
 
God bless America said:
Looked to me like something you saw on TV, Canadian.

You do know the difference between some guy making a claim on television and history, don't you?
Click to expand...

'Some guy' was THE Republican strategist, who hilariously gave away the real Repubican strategy throughout the Civil Rights era and beyond.


"Southern Strategy"

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of The New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released a 42-minute audio recording of the interview.[10] James Carter IV, grandson of former president Jimmy Carter, had asked and been granted access to these tapes by Lamis' widow. Atwater talked about the Republican Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".[11][12]
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
 
Amadoofus said:
'Some guy' was THE Republican strategist, who hilariously gave away the real Repubican strategy throughout the Civil Rights era and beyond.
Click to expand...

I know who he was, comic book Canadian. He was "a" former Republican strategist. Singular. Not "the" Republican strategist. There were plenty before him, there were several others while he was alive, there are others now, and there will be others in the future.

He was one guy. You found something he said on TV that you liked and pretended it's history. Hilarious.

There's no evidence that what he was relating on TV is "history", Canadian, any more than Game of Thrones is "history".

If you're such an expert on Republicans, how come you can't seem to spell "Republican", Canadian?

Fun fact: Atwater died of a brain tumor. Ed Rollins stated that "Atwater was telling this story about how a Living Bible was what was giving him faith and I said to Mary Matalin, 'I really, sincerely hope that he found peace.' She said, 'Ed, when we were cleaning up his things afterwards, the Bible was still wrapped in the cellophane and had never been taken out of the package,' which just told you everything there was. He was spinning right to the end".

So he was hardly credible, was he Canadian?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top