Repeat Hits -- songs that became popular in more than one era

[Vito Corleone]

. I was in school during the time when schools were going though de segregation. Racial tensions were actually less then than they are now.

 

Yes, well keeping folks segregated will keep tensions between them tamped down a bit. Or at least the public appearances will be such.

 

 

The thing that has always made them worse is race baiting for political power

 

Or TV ratings. But then if it weren't for race baiting, good ol' Bill O'Reilly would probably be out of a job....

[TIMKEYS]

dave you were not even potty trained when all that stuff was going down. Face up to the fact that the heart and soul of the democrat party is convincing people they are a victim of society. What has the democrat party done for them? Nothing but keep them poor, keeping them convinced that they cant make it without them, and keeping them voting for democrats. Slavery is not dead, the only difference is that they only have to go work in the field on election day. Democrats and social engineering is at the root of poverty and misery . Its hard to watch when you know that it doesnt have to be that way. You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps or you can sell out and let liberals hang you with them and destroy your self respect.

[Vito Corleone]

dave you were not even potty trained when all that stuff was going down. Face up to the fact that the heart and soul of the democrat party is convincing people they are a victim of society. What has the democrat party done for them? Nothing but keep them poor, keeping them convinced that they cant make it without them, and keeping them voting for democrats. Slavery is not dead, the only difference is that they only have to go work in the field on election day. Democrats and social engineering is at the root of poverty and misery . Its hard to watch when you know that it doesnt have to be that way. You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps or you can sell out and let liberals hang you with them and destroy your self respect.

 

LOL. Leave it Tim to take a topic political and turn into some silly talk radio partisan debate.

 

But yes, I am more than old enough and educated enough to know what was going down. Being a few years older than me or anyone else doesn't automatically make any you any wiser on ANY topic.

 

If you think race relations were better prior to the Johnson administration you're living in a complete state of denial. Or worse.

 

[TIMKEYS]

 

 

Here is LBJ ...

 

He also is to have said ~Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

 

dave you were the guy who started in on the entertainers working in black face and got the whole ball rolling. Its always the same with you ,, you start some **************** , then try to claim that you didn't do anything. Same old dave ,, there he goes again. Its no secret that there were protests over civil rights in the 60s and its pretty easy to find a picture. I grew up very near the end of the under ground railroad and was born in 51 and there are a lot of blacks there. The rust belt between Chicago and Detroit didn't see much in the way of riots. It was pretty mello because that was the way MLK wanted it. The big events were in the south and that part of the country was controlled by democrats. Todays society is much more racially charged than it was back in the 50s and 60s. We can thank democrats for that. Its a fact guy. This deal that went down in MO is a good example. Have you seen the pictures of the cops face after the shooting? That cop is going to walk ,, but he may be subjected to a show trial and have his life totally destroyed just to appease people who cant except the facts. I never saw white and black drinking fountains ,, or places that would not serve blacks. We were pretty much on the sidelines because where I lived was where blacks escaped to get away from slavery. slavery is a democrat thing and still is. The only difference is that today they are vote slaves. sorry dude that's how things went down. You might want to look at that car in the middle of the intersection ,, its way before the civil rights struggle that took place in the late 50s and 60s. One photo has a date on it of 1931. I thought you were smarter than this lol. Civil rights would have never passed if it were not for the republican party votes. Johnson was a democrat southern racist and didn't have the votes of his own party to pass the civil rights legislation.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

Here is LBJ ...

 

 

I know who LBJ was. I also know he didn't create racial tensions or make them worse, as you stated.

 

 

 

dave you were the guy who started in on the entertainers working in black face and got the whole ball rolling.

 

I wasn't the one who took it political, let alone try to paint into some silly MODERN political context. I said nothing about politics or parties at all. That it is apparently impossible for you to read or discuss racial issues without seeing it as political and using it as a launching pad for another one of your silly anti-Democratic Party rants is on you, not me.

 

YOU started the political talk here, Tim. As usual.

 

You might want to look at that car in the middle of the intersection ,, its way before the civil rights struggle that took place in the late 50s and 60s. One photo has a date on it of 1931. I thought you were smarter than this lol

 

Where did I say all the photos were from the 50s or put any date on them at all??? I wasn't looking for photos from the 50s and 60 specifically. LOL.

 

I just said racial tensions were worse prior to the Johnson administration than they are today. You said they are worse NOW. Which is nonsense. Yes, of course there would be pictures from the 30s. ~~And from long before if the photos exist and anybody wants to look for them.(And the photo isn't from 1931, the SIGN in the photo was made in 1931. But it was probably around up until the 60s at that swimming pool I would imagine. But who knows when the photo itself was actually taken.).

 

The civil rights protests of the 50s and 60s didn't come out of nowhere. That stuff was brewing since the end of slavery. And it's still going on today. We aren't past it yet. And if you believe the only reason it still is has to do with modern political parties and policies than all I can say is you're watching and listening to WAAAAAY to much partisan/ideological propaganda. But hey....maybe those "news" outlets accomplished their goals and sold you some Goldline coins or a LifeAlert or whatever the crap is they sell to the cranky, retired old guys who sit around listening to that stuff all day long.

 

But you wanna make it about partisan BS? Then let's go there. Yeah, you're right. It WAS the Democrats who were the party of the Jim Crow south in the earlier parts of the 20th century. You CAN thank Democrats for that. They were horrible in that regard and you can blame the Northern Dems for tolerating that BS from the southern wing of the party for far too long. Of course it all started to finally break apart in the 40s with the rise of the "DixieCrats" and Strom Thurmond and all that nonsense.

 

You can also thank the northern/Western Democrats and LBJ for passing and signing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (along with the help of some more enlightened northern/Western Republicans).

 

And yes, your quote from LBJ was largely true because signing those acts DID bring blacks to the Democratic party after that. (That's how politics work. You enact policies that address the concerns of a particular constituency and then they vote for you as a result. This is news to you?) And the same legislation was what began the mass exodus of southern whites to the GOP. Which Nixon and others were all too happy and willing to sop up with a wink and nod about "restoring law and order".

Look up the "Southern Strategy" if you've never heard of it/insisted on ignoring it up until now. You can also look up quote about LBJ knowing the Dems would lose the south for a generation.

 

So yeah, by and large all those racist white southern Dems from the 1950s and 60s ran to the GOP as quick as they could---or at the very least their ideological offspring resides in the GOP today. The two major political parties basically did a complete switcheroo with each other when it comes to their constituencies in the south between 1970 and 2000.

 

But hey---you lived all this stuff, right? You SHOULD know all of it already without me telling you about it. But rather than understand the truth of the history, you apparently have some silly personal agenda where you feel to need to spin history to make the Democratic party be as "bad" as possible. Choose whichever party you want to align yourself with for the reasons you desire. That's your business. But don't re-write history in order to make yourself feel better about something. Or whatever the f' it is you're doing here.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Civil rights would have never passed if it were not for the republican party votes.

 

Or without the Democratic party votes. The vote didn't split along party lines, it split along the Mason-Dixon line. While there WERE a couple of southern Dems (eight, to be exact) who voted for the CRA, there wasn't a single southern Republican who voted for it.

 

Meanwhile, while 10 Northern Dems voted against it, 29 Northern Pubs voted against it. But yes...since the Democratic party heavily dominated the south, and had the VAST majority of the southern white vote, it took good people from BOTH parties to pass it.

 

The country has been split north/south since its founding. That split continues today. And race relations are, sadly, at the core of the split. How that trickles down to the various political parties varies with time. The two parties have basically switched roles on a lot of that over the last several decades.

 

But as far as race and politics go, you really should stop pointing fingers and look in the mirror, Tim. You think guys like Sharpton and Jackson are race-baiters who see racial and political motivations under every rock? What the hell are YOU doing? We were discussing the social contexts of performing in blackface decades ago, and YOU had to turn it into a rant about modern politics, the demise of the black family, LBJ and "race baiting". And then you drag the MO incident into it and---surprise, surprise---seem to have already decided the white cop's actions were justified and talk about people "accepting the facts" which haven't yet become public, but YOU--apparently---already know what the "facts" are in that case.

 

EVERYTHING is race and politics to you, dude. Look at yourself. Just paint your face black and pretend to be Al Sharpton already, why don't you? You'd probably get a million hits on YouTube with your act from all the Fox News fans in the south who would find it HILARIOUS!

[Vito Corleone]

Have you seen the pictures of the cops face after the shooting?

 

No, have you?

 

I hope you don't mean THIS photo, because THIS one isn't him.....lol

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/09/05/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-week-betty-white-twitter-filtering-and-that-photo-of-darren-Wilson/

[TIMKEYS]

I will give you that point ,, that photo seems to be a fake ,, but you are still holding a losing hand if you bet against officer Wilson. He will walk. As for the post above that ,, its another one of the losing hands you seem to want to bet on. Sharpton and jackson are not a race baiters ... come on dave, you cant be serious.

 

Lets just wait and see how things shake out on big mike brown. Actually everything is about holding power and race and politics is a big factor in the democrat party. Meanwhile back a the ranch we are being over run by illegals who think Obama is going to give them citizenship ,, but has to wait till after the election. LOL

[Vito Corleone]

 

I will give you that point ,, that photo seems to be a fake ,, but you are still holding a losing hand if you bet against officer Wilson. He will walk.

 

Cops usually do. They've got the DAs in their back pocket, and they almost always win in the He Said/He Said cases. That's why I think more cameras in the vehicles is probably a good idea. As far as THIS case goes? Who knows. 1) All the facts aren't public yet, so it's impossible to say what's what, although I'm having a hard time seeing how a trained police officer, equipped with clubs, pepper spray and who knows what else had no option but to shoot an unarmed person six times until he was dead. Seems a shot or two to the leg would have been enough? If not something much less? But who knows. Maybe he was justified in killing that kid.

 

2) This has blown up too big and already the feds have been brought in. If he walks in a criminal trial the feds will probably file civil rights violation charges against him. But regardless of the outcome, the problem is that too many people have already decided the case either for or against the cop and nothing that comes out from now will change their mind. They'll just cry that somebody got railed by the system. Already pretty sure which side you're on, Tim.

 

As for the post above that ,, its another one of the losing hands you seem to want to bet on. Sharpton and jackson are not a race baiters ... come on dave, you cant be serious.

 

They are. Where have I said they weren't? But so are Hannity and O'Reilly. Throwing red meat to their respective audiences in order to further line their own pockets. And spending more time pointing fingers at each other than dealing with any actual issues. Pretty comical to watch from the outside.

 

Actually everything is about holding power and race and politics is a big factor in the democrat party.

 

Because it's not for the GOP??? They both want to hold power and when it comes to race and politics they are just playing the opposite sides of the same coin.

 

Meanwhile O'Reilly goes on TV every night telling his average-age-70 white male audience that there's no such thing as "white privilege" in the US. But he's not "race baiting", of course....lol....

[TIMKEYS]

~~ I'm having a hard time seeing how a trained police officer, equipped with clubs, pepper spray and who knows what else had no option but to shoot an unarmed person six times until he was dead.

 

Its a matter of shot placement and the fact that pistol rounds are not that powerful. I would guess the officers duty pistol was a 40 cal.

 

This kid was already caught of film strong arming a store owner in a robbery so we know he was aggressive and stupid. He was big like 6 foot 4 and 270 pounds or so. What was he doing inside the cop car? Do you honestly thing that the cop could man handle that kid? Like you said ,, no one knows exactly what happened. The six shots are not a big deal. You ever shoot much pistol? I have lots of experience with them. I reload my own ammo. Its a given that when you feel your life may well be in danger your aim is going to suffer. To make a one shot stop on a guy that size its going to have to be head shot or a heart shot or a couple in the boiler room. His wounds according to the doc hired by the family were not enough to stop him till one hit him in the head. The cop I would guess had 16 rounds total. one in the pipe and 15 in the mag. one went off in the car when the cop said the kid was going for his gun,,,, then the kid ran and from the cops story turned and charged him. the cop had no choice but to unload on him. I would guess he dumped more than 7 rounds... prolly a couple misses and few minor hits and the one that stopped him in the head. The real clincher in this case I would think would be if that kids finger prints are on that cops gun in some form or another. Cops don't tend to throw a whole career and their life away over a situation where their life is not in danger. I think its pretty safe bet that the cop is telling the truth,,, time will tell ,,, but if you would like to wager ,, I am all in.

 

[Vito Corleone]

~~ I'm having a hard time seeing how a trained police officer, equipped with clubs, pepper spray and who knows what else had no option but to shoot an unarmed person six times until he was dead.

 

Its a matter of shot placement and the fact that pistol rounds are not that powerful. I would guess the officers duty pistol was a 40 cal.

 

This kid was already caught of film strong arming a store owner in a robbery so we know he was aggressive and stupid. He was big like 6 foot 4 and 270 pounds or so. What was he doing inside the cop car? Do you honestly thing that the cop could man handle that kid? Like you said ,, no one knows exactly what happened. The six shots are not a big deal. You ever shoot much pistol? I have lots of experience with them. I reload my own ammo. Its a given that when you feel your life may well be in danger your aim is going to suffer. To make a one shot stop on a guy that size its going to have to be head shot or a heart shot or a couple in the boiler room. His wounds according to the doc hired by the family were not enough to stop him till one hit him in the head. The cop I would guess had 16 rounds total. one in the pipe and 15 in the mag. one went off in the car when the cop said the kid was going for his gun,,,, then the kid ran and from the cops story turned and charged him. the cop had no choice but to unload on him. I would guess he dumped more than 7 rounds... prolly a couple misses and few minor hits and the one that stopped him in the head. The real clincher in this case I would think would be if that kids finger prints are on that cops gun in some form or another. Cops don't tend to throw a whole career and their life away over a situation where their life is not in danger. I think its pretty safe bet that the cop is telling the truth,,, time will tell ,,, but if you would like to wager ,, I am all in.

 

Lots of suppositions there, and you haven't even yet heard the cops side of the story so what "truth" is he telling? To my knowledge, he hasn't said ANYTHING yet, has he?

 

Let me ask you? Do you side with the police EVERY time? You don't think these guys EVER over react? Or is it only when black kids get killed that you think any amount of "defense" is acceptable? You sure seem to love that big gummit when it's the gummit sending the police out. Especially against "those" people you so desperately seem to want to be protected from.

 

It's a cops job to not overreact and not think his life is in danger every time some blowhard kid gets in his face a bit. I've seen cops overuse their authority MANY times. I've had them do it with me, and there is NO DOUBT in my mind that blacks get a rougher time from cops than whites do simply because they are black. And yeah...maybe they don't get the water hoses turned on them anymore but such things aren't handled fairly and people know it and have lived with it for decades and after awhile people get sick of stuff and it blows up. And sometimes the case that blows up gets blown out of proportion as a result of all the decades of this stuff backing up and that might suck for this one officer or....it might not.

 

Cops use the "he went for my gun!" defense often and the other cops of course all back him up. As will the DA most times. They're all on the same side in these issues. If this is one of those cases----I don't know. But I'm not going to automatically presume it isn't either. Nor make bets one way or the other.

 

But look at yourself, Tim...you WANT it to be a certain way. You're rooting for a particular "truth" here. You have no facts to support it. You just WANT it to be so. So what if this stupid kid stole some cigars a couple of hours before? ("strong armed"....lol. He pushes the clerk back a few inches on his way out the door.) That makes him a candidate for being shot down in the street by the cops an couple of hours later? C'mon. Stop believing what you WANT to believe and be objective. For once.

 

It's just as unbelievable that a cop could handle a big guy like that without shooting him 6 times as it is that such a guy would try to take down an armed police officer in the first place. Why would the kid want to do that? How did this situation escalate to that point? Doesn't the police officer--there to protect and serve this kid as well as any of the rest of us---have the responsibility to try and make sure such escalations don't happen in the first place?

 

But yeah...lets get more cameras in these police cars. What I WILL bet is that once that happens these "he went for my gun!" incidents drop dramatically.

[TIMKEYS]

Dave.... You are holding a losing hand. Give it up guy. Mike brown did some serious damage to the cops eye socket. He just got done robbing a store and is on video. No police officer is going to give that kid a second chance at knocking him out and taking his weapon and using it on him. Its really pretty cut and dried. He was not shot in the back. The kid with him had a warrant out for him for lying to police. You are from a gambling town ,,, would you gamble your life on mike brown next actions? Why did the kid charge him. I would guess its because he was really stupid. It got him killed. Being really stupid is what got travon martin killed too. They have audio tapes of a bystander telling how the cop got bum rushed by mike. So all I am doing is giving you the logical outcome of this case. Do you know anything about personal defense with a handgun? The buzz word unarmed doesn't mean poop when a felon is on top of you pounding your face and you have a side arm on you.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm not holding ANY "hand" here, Tim. I'm not the one making any predictions about this case. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I really don't care how it comes out. You're the one who gets caught up in this stuff like it's your family involved in the case or something. And look at your own history with that. Your "logical outcomes" have almost never been correct. Why? Because they aren't based on logic. They are based on your ideology. Your predictions are always the same: take the standard conservative/Republican position of the day and call that the "truth". So why should anyone believe you here? You rush to the conclusions you want to believe. You fell for the picture on the internet because you wanted to believe it. You didn't even question it when you first saw it, did you? Do you believe EVERYTHING you see on the internet? Or just the stuff that makes you smile when you see it because it supports your biases?

 

The cop didn't know the kid had robbed a store and even if he had, that's still no reason to shoot him. You don't shoot somebody 6 times because he stole cigars. Lying to police isn't a reason to get shot either. There are conflicting eyewitness accounts (as is usual in such cases) but you only seem to believe the ones that line up with your preconceived notions. The others are what? All a bunch of liars, I suppose? You've already rendered a verdict without any of the necessary facts in the case. You've rendered it based on internet rumors and what you WANT to believe.

 

Could the kid have been really stupid and charge the cop? Sure. Anything's possible until we have all the evidence, right? Could the cop have overreacted? In your view, apparently not. Not even a possibility in your mind, it seems. Cops never do wrong. Especially against black kids, it seems. And hey! The kid was BIG!! lol.

 

Yes, I do know about personal defense with a handgun. Which is why whenever there is a case where one guy is armed and the other is not and the unarmed guy ends up getting shot in the head and killed there better be some pretty good evidence to defend that. ESPECIALLY if the guy with the gun is a supposedly well-trained officer of the law with other means to defend himself at the time than just his gun.

 

But hey....aren't you the guy who said a few days ago that the best way to deal with the young kids coming over the border would be to shoot a few of them and that would stop them from wanting to come here? Yeah, I think that was you. So discussing "logical" ANYTHING with you probably isn't the way to go. Logic doesn't really seem to figure into your MO, Tim. It's all emotion. This stuff gets you way too wound up. Watch less of the news. Stay off those crazy right wing websites that post all sorts of nonsense without confirming the sources first. Calm down. You're safe in your trailer down there. The black guys aren't going to come and get you. But buy yourself another gun if it makes you feel better. Two or three more should make you plenty safe, doncha think? Well, at least until Obama starts arming the Honduran kids.

 

But I'll give you my best prediction of the outcome based on the (very skimpy) known facts thus far: the cop walks because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. The feds file charges that he violated the kids civil rights. And guys like you have a fit over it.

 

And I won't even bother to bring up the fact that the AG is a black guy.....

[daddymack]

Guido and Timkeys...I have 'unapproved' the 'historical perspective' exchange...take it to PM if you care to continue it...but not in here, thanks...

[pogo97]

Tiptoe Through the Tulips : Nick Lucas version covered by Tiny Tim

 

by the way, in an important news flash, I believe that the Israel Kamakawiwoʻole version was based on Cliff Edward's cover (rather than the Judy version). Explains some of the peculiar chords.