Confederates attack minority students at U of Texas

Those KKK members of the Dem party like Grand Dragon Senator Robert Byrd? Did they even censure the guy for his past crimes of racism?

How sweet...You got to use "Robert Byrd" in a sentence....

I DO love it when you walk into that one... Then I get to cram this down your throat for the umpteenth time:

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

Williamson crafts a tale in which the Republican Party is and always has been the greatest friend the civil rights cause ever had. The Republican takeover of the white South had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, the revisionist case proclaims, except insofar as white Southerners supported Republicans because they were more pro-civil rights.

His story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party “went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress” — that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower’s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957. But after this wee dry spell, the party resumed and maintained its natural place as civil rights champion. To the extent that Republicans replaced Democrats in the South, Williamson sees their support for civil rights as the cause. (“Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans.”) As his one data point, Williamson cites the victory of George Bush in Texas over a Democrat who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He correctly cites Bush’s previous record of moderation on civil rights but neglects to mention that Bush also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

C'mon, cupcake... Let's do this again... I can hardly wait....

What has any of this to do with your bigotry Jazzer? What does your revisionist history have to do with your knuggle-dragging belief that it was the white sheet crowd has to be the one responsible for tossing the water balloon at that black student when the responsible party has yet to be identified and responsible adults, which excludes you of course, are only saying that it is being investigated as possibly race motivated?

If the Democrats plan for public schools is so wonderful, now come the more it is followed the worse the schools, and the education received at them, becomes? D.C. has the highest per pupil funding level in the entire Union and yet the Native American Reservations graduated a higher percentage of their students than the D.C. public schools did in 2011. D.C. spent over $29K per student that year and still less than 6 in 10 students who started 9th grade receive a diploma. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the politicians in Washington having a good plan for public education all across the Union, I don't know what else will.

Rather than get in the way of what Louisiana is doing, Holder and the DoJ should be taking notes on how to educate poor minority students so that they have a chance at success later on in life. The goal of publicly subsidizing an education for every child is to make sure that every child is educated sufficient to be a contributing member of the society. No one disputes that a child who receives a good primary and secondary education is leagues ahead of a child who doesn't. Where they get that education is irrelevant, what is important is that they receive it.

The failure of the current public school system to provide such an education means it is time to look for alternatives to the paradigm that the "progressives" have foisted on the public since the 1950's. The further into the tent that the federal and State governments shove their noses, the worse the schools become. Is it any wonder that the school systems where the various levels of government have no say are the very ones with a better track record of educating the children that attend them?

Know what the graduation rate is at the Denver Catholic Schools Jazzer? 97%, even in the inner city schools that serve primarily the children of poor, single parent households whose students are attending those schools on scholarships provided by the parish and the Denver Archdiocese. Those kids, those same poor, minority students who are dropping out of metro Denver public schools in record numbers are graduating from the city's Catholic schools.

Catholic school students, without exception, outscore their public school counterparts, particularly in the "at risk" categories. The older the student, the greater the difference in test scores.

What's the matter Jazzer - are you more interested in your ideology than you are in making sure that the children receive the best possible education available to them? Is your ideology more important than seeing nearly every high school student stay in school long enough to earn a diploma? There was a time, not too long ago mind you, when people such as yourself protested against using public funds to provide educational opportunities at the best private universities in the Union - because many of them also have religious ties. Thankfully, knuckle-draggers such as yourself lost that battle. One can only hope that you lose this one too. The future of the children in the Union is far too important to put up with your petty ideological bigotry. We publicly subsidize an education for every child so that they might become educated, not to employ public sector union workers and provide them with lavish benefits while holding children hostage to do it.

PS...good post. BUT easy on LJ.....she (he, it) has a few cards missing as we all know here. OLD Hippies really o nee "special care" after the age of about 30.......

BTW The Confederates lost the war but clearly won reconstruction.........the RUST BELT is clearly a result of ALs (from Kentucky BTW....not Illionis) centralize government and the fleecing of the Sheep to keep the train wreck afloat.

Just because you can find this doesn't mean it is correct. It is as slanted as the rest of your posts and full of inaccuracies. But thanks for playing. Out of bounds once again.
Meanwhile, more African-Americans are out of work now than under President Bush. Eventually the public will actually want results from Obama. 7.5% unemployment for 5+ years grow tiresome.

LadyJazzer wrote: How sweet...You got to use "Robert Byrd" in a sentence....

I DO love it when you walk into that one... Then I get to cram this down your throat for the umpteenth time:

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

Williamson crafts a tale in which the Republican Party is and always has been the greatest friend the civil rights cause ever had. The Republican takeover of the white South had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, the revisionist case proclaims, except insofar as white Southerners supported Republicans because they were more pro-civil rights.

His story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party “went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress” — that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower’s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957. But after this wee dry spell, the party resumed and maintained its natural place as civil rights champion. To the extent that Republicans replaced Democrats in the South, Williamson sees their support for civil rights as the cause. (“Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans.”) As his one data point, Williamson cites the victory of George Bush in Texas over a Democrat who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He correctly cites Bush’s previous record of moderation on civil rights but neglects to mention that Bush also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

C'mon, cupcake... Let's do this again... I can hardly wait....

PrintSmith wrote: I knew it was only a matter of time before our other resident race baiter joined this discussion. Welcome to the dialog Dog. Tell us what you think of VL and Jazzer rushing to the conclusion that the person responsible for the balloons filled with water is necessarily white when more responsible individuals are only saying that they are investigating whether race is involved.

Typical PS BS. Rather than address the content of my post, you choose to ignore the content, go into personal attack mode, call other posters juvenile names, and try to play the victim.

deltamrey wrote: PS...good post. BUT easy on LJ.....she (he, it) has a few cards missing as we all know here. OLD Hippies really o nee "special care" after the age of about 30.......

BTW The Confederates lost the war but clearly won reconstruction.........the RUST BELT is clearly a result of ALs (from Kentucky BTW....not Illionis) centralize government and the fleecing of the Sheep to keep the train wreck afloat.

Gee, you can always tell when Delta/he-she-it, has run out of cogent arguments relevant to the topic. Off into the weeds with personal attacks again...

You want to play the he/she/it game for awhile, cupcake?...I'm good with that.. I'm never sure what you are either....