DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:that is the summary of why voting matters, using a single, sad example. Nothing partisan, merely reality.

That single example was a reference to the early days of Jim Crow and your party seeks every opportunity to scare votes up by suggesting we are still in those days.

Voting matters so much to some that despicable people will exploit the sensitivities of others to get a vote. They will advance a narrative that ensures wounds stay open and are passed down through generations.

At least this time you didn't try to say your party didn't really say those things, I guess the third time was the charm. Hey! You are a progressive!

Will Robinson wrote:a reference to the early days of Jim Crow

ahh, now I am starting to see the real problem. For some bizarre reason you think church-burnings ended in the early 20th century(Jim Crow laws began then). Sorry, but reality dictates that they are still happening. There were at least 3 that I heard of in the past two years.



edit--for instance, and I found 5 more from 2011 to present. Thought you'd like this neat tie-in with elections
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46052395/ns/u ... S7cTdmYaM8

slick, the Dem party political advertisement I quoted had the sound of whips cracking, bombs exploding and victims cries of pain.

"When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister . . . Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate."

It referenced a church being bombed that was a well known event from the heart of a time that has long gone by.
And that is the point. That time has past.

Arson and bigots will never go away completely and I imagine there will even be arson perpetrated by bigots a hundred years from now...by bigots of all races and religions...

That doesn't mean we are still in the days of Jim Crow politically or otherwise...when is the last time a church was *bombed* killing the church goers? Stop with the word games and attempts to set up a red herring defense of your party.

And to be precisely on the point I raised, you have not proven the Dem Party doesn't fear monger racial hatred to gather votes.

Of course you have a real need to blur that distinction out of loyalty to your cause. A cause you and others have no shame for exploiting the fears of black people to support.

Will Robinson wrote:slick, the Dem party political advertisement I quoted had the sound of whips cracking, bombs exploding and victims cries of pain.

"When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister . . . Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate."

and that ceased in the Early Jim Crow era?

It referenced a church being bombed that was a well known event from the heart of a time that has long gone by.
And that is the point. That time has past.

no, it hasn't passed. I just pointed that out to you, and linked one example of several I found from 2011 to 2014.

I just looove how will is doing the same thing he accused me of. It's kind of cute.

Ferno wrote:I just looove how will is doing the same thing he accused me of. It's kind of cute.

So are you trying to say you were in the right then like I am now?
Or that I am now wrong like you were then?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:slick, the Dem party political advertisement I quoted had the sound of whips cracking, bombs exploding and victims cries of pain.

"When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister . . . Vote smart. Vote Democratic for Congress and the U.S. Senate."

and that ceased in the Early Jim Crow era?

It referenced a church being bombed that was a well known event from the heart of a time that has long gone by.
And that is the point. That time has past.

no, it hasn't passed. I just pointed that out to you, and linked one example of several I found from 2011 to 2014.

You think you have given links to proof Jim Crow is still with us?!?
I can rest my case then.

The Church bombing cited has nothing to do, whatsoever, with either Jim Crow(a set of archetypical laws in Southern States)nor does the era of such contain instances of violence against black institutions or individuals. Hence, a modern call to vote and involve the citizens more closely with how their local community is run is entirely justified. Perhaps sensationalist, but geezus, how much of modern rhetoric around elections ISN'T?

callmeslick wrote:The Church bombing cited has nothing to do, whatsoever, with either Jim Crow(a set of archetypical laws in Southern States)nor does the era of such contain instances of violence against black institutions or individuals. Hence, a modern call to vote and involve the citizens more closely with how their local community is run is entirely justified. Perhaps sensationalist, but geezus, how much of modern rhetoric around elections ISN'T?

Quoted to preserve it for display.

if anyone wishes to look more closely at racial pandering in politics, this article is informative. Will should be happy, as Bill Clinton made the list of examples......
http://billmoyers.com/content/six-case- ... olitics/7/

slick doing the dance again.
He tells us this bombing of a church has- "nothing to do, whatsoever, with either Jim Crow(a set of archetypical laws in Southern States)nor does the era of such contain instances of violence against black institutions or individuals."

Instead we should turn our focus to his not-even-close-to-objective-selection of dog whistle examples.

I guess his definition of when the Jim Crow era was...or what violence on black people was...is completely up to him to redefine as it suits him when he's huffing and puffing on the internet.

I wonder though, how many people want to adopt such a ridiculous assertion as their interpretation of the events of that bombing, not to mention the whole Jim Crow era for that matter? He apparently thinks people reading this thread are that stupid or that foolish.

Will Robinson wrote:slick doing the dance again.
He tells us this bombing of a church has- "nothing to do, whatsoever, with either Jim Crow(a set of archetypical laws in Southern States)nor does the era of such contain instances of violence against black institutions or individuals."

what dance. A church bombing has NOTHING to do with a set of laws(Jim Crow)

Instead we should turn our focus to his not-even-close-to-objective-selection of dog whistle examples.

I just brought the examples of pandering for votes here, because you keep harping on one party doing so.

I guess his definition of when the Jim Crow era was...or what violence on black people was...is completely up to him to redefine as it suits him when he's huffing and puffing on the internet.

no, the Jim Crow era, and the laws that define it, are pretty solidly established by historians, and I stick to that. It refers to the post-reconstruction South, and generally entails the early to middle 20th century. What are YOU using as a definition, pray tell?

I wonder though, how many people want to adopt such a ridiculous assertion as their interpretation of the events of that bombing, not to mention the whole Jim Crow era for that matter? He apparently thinks people reading this thread are that stupid or that foolish.

no, thus far I think that about only one......

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:slick doing the dance again.
He tells us this bombing of a church has- "nothing to do, whatsoever, with either Jim Crow(a set of archetypical laws in Southern States)nor does the era of such contain instances of violence against black institutions or individuals."

what dance. A church bombing has NOTHING to do with a set of laws(Jim Crow)

Lol! You really think you are fooling people don't you?!?

I only said numerous times that I was referring to a period of time...the Jim Crow era...

Here:

Will Robinson wrote:...

It referenced a church being bombed that was a well known event from the heart of a time that has long gone by.
And that is the point. That time has past.

Arson and bigots will never go away completely and I imagine there will even be arson perpetrated by bigots a hundred years from now...by bigots of all races and religions...

That doesn't mean we are still in the days of Jim Crow politically or otherwise...

But you need to move those goalposts...you need to redefine the era I cited and redefine it as 'operating under some set of laws' so that you can then claim I'm wrong in suggesting the bombing in the democrats ad doesn't harken back to a period of time.

And by the way, Jim Crow ended after the bombing your party used in that ad to fear monger some votes.
In fact a lot of those historians you think you speak for will tell you that bombing was a pivotal event in bringing Dr Kings efforts to fruition.

Your party was fear mongering votes some 30 years later by citing that bombing, and using whip cracking and screams of pain...saying, not in some vague dog whistle language...saying in plain English if you don't vote democrat you cause more of that same horror.

Now please return to your word games and shameless denial in defense of such pathetic and blatant race baiting.

I showed you that church bombings have persisted, right up to the present. You keep, for some reason, babbling about the Jim Crow era.
Not too deep an intellect there, Will. Now, have you even attempted to read up on the examples of using race encoded language to win votes?

callmeslick wrote:I showed you that church bombings have persisted, right up to the present.

No, you showed us a church under construction was burned while no one was inside.
I imagine you set out to find bombings of black churches that killed numerous people inside like the example I showed you. When you couldn't find one you began calling the empty church burning a bombing in an attempt to prove church bombings have persisted.

callmeslick wrote:You keep, for some reason, babbling about the Jim Crow era.

I showed you your party uses the horror of that era, suggesting we are going to return to that if people don't vote for them.
You want us to think that is the same thing as some dog whistle theories.

I think most people see the difference between the two examples. I think most people see your attempts to misrepresent reality in this discussion as the same as lying.

callmeslick wrote:Not too deep an intellect there, Will.

Take your best shot. Your efforts here are so pathetic they are proving to be such an effective way to expose your dishonest character that even a dummy like me can handle getting it done.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I showed you that church bombings have persisted, right up to the present.

No, you showed us a church under construction was burned while no one was inside.
I imagine you set out to find bombings of black churches that killed numerous people inside like the example I showed you. When you couldn't find one you began calling the empty church burning a bombing in an attempt to prove church bombings have persisted.

oh, I didn't catch the qualifier about actually killing people. That's right, because you just made it, above. Also, you realize that, had you read into codewording and such, that 'bombings' in the context you're talking about could be reference to any racially motivated attacks upon black citizens. Likewise, the word 'lynching' has far less limited connotation than mere extralegal hanging.

callmeslick wrote:You keep, for some reason, babbling about the Jim Crow era.

I showed you your party uses the horror of that era, suggesting we are going to return to that if people don't vote for them.
You want us to think that is the same thing as some dog whistle theories.

and you prove, regularly, that the mentality behind that era still leaves. Tell us again how you warn your kids about those dangerous black folk......

I think most people see the difference between the two examples. I think most people see your attempts to misrepresent reality in this discussion as the same as lying.

don't see any outpouring of agreement with you, Will. But, think what you will. We all get to have pet fantasies.

Take your best shot. Your efforts here are so pathetic they are proving to be such an effective way to expose your dishonest character that even a dummy like me can handle getting it done.

see above re:fantasies.