FOX says Mexicans in the US do the work blacks don't want.......

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, I'm saying that the party that most black people affiliate themselves with will obviously have more elected black representatives. This isn't rocket science...

So, the Democrats have both the record for minority appointments and the largest contingent of minorities in Congress, including in leadership position, but it's "tokenism" because they haven't appointed a black secretary of state? Yup, a pathetic argument on your part.

You realize there are absolutely NO black GOP congress members, right? Not a one. Statistically, they should have at least a couple based on the electorate.

Please note that I said "important posts". Giving appointed minorities real responsibility shows the Bush Administration isn't just engaging in tokenism.

I'm sure all of those cabinet appointees and judges will be happy to know you dismiss their roles as unimportant. Jesus, Drake, is there anyone you won't insult to make cheap shots?

It's not any stupider than labelling the Republicans the "party of racism." Excuse me for fighting fire with fire.

Yeah, except nobody called the Republicans "the party of racism." Strawmen abound...

I never got that impression. Seemed like he was using "******" as a negative term, which is repugnant even if the targets of the slur were white.

Gee, someone who doesn't think using the term "gay" negatively is offensive because it is supposedly removed from its sexuality context suddenly gets riled up over the someone doing something similar to "******"? Such consistency...

Regardless, the point of the comment was that he didn't mean "******" to refer to race. As I said, it was a stupid comment, but it's pretty inarguable that his intent was not racist.

At any rate, I doubt you would be so forgiving if an ex-Klansmen who happened to be a Republican used the word "******" on national TV.

Depends on the context and their record. As I noted in another thread about Byrd, I was pretty forgiving of one Strom Thurmond for his racist past. Seems to me he was a Republican as well. I also think George Wallace made a decent rehabilitation, although it's a shame it took a bullet to do it.

But David Duke? Yeah, don't think I'll be turning a blind eye to his racist douchebaggery. Hmm, what party was elected to congress for...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But David Duke? Yeah, don't think I'll be turning a blind eye to his racist douchebaggery. Hmm, what party was elected to congress for...

I'm not sure, but I think the party you're thinking of, starts with the letter "R."

[Ted Striker]

The Reform Party???!

[MrFun]

I see that Ned is unable to respond to my smack-down post.




That poor guy . . . . . . .

[DinoDoc]

Stupid arguement.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Stupid arguement.

Now that I can agree on (except the spelling, tsk). So it's off to bed.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

As an aside, I find it odd and disturbingly inconsistent that the word "w4nker" gets starred out, but the word "******" does not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



OMFG!!


During the late 1850s through the 1870s, the Republican Party had a substantial number of members who were anti-racists while other Republican members were more conservative in regards to concerns of blacks at the time.

However, Reconstruction came to an end with the notorious compromise on the tied presidential election of 1877 when Republican politicians agreed to organize a withdrawal of Union soldiers from the South in return for Southern acceptance of another Republican president.

Republicans were beginning to turn more strongly towards economic issues/interests at the expense of civil rights and the plight of freed blacks in the South. The more conservative Republicans began to gain stronger control of their own party, so that by the 1890s, the Republican Party had become a white supremacist party. Between the 1890s and 1940s, the Republican Party and Democratic Party were both white supremacist parties -- until that is, the Democratic Party changed to embrace egalitarian principles.



Now what were you saying, Ned?

Bull.

[chequita guevara]

I don't think Duke was elected to Congress. IIRC, he was elected to the state legistlature of Louisianna.

And Neddie, MrFun wasn't speaking bull. The Reconstruction Era seems to be Fun's area of expertise.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think Duke was elected to Congress. IIRC, he was elected to the state legistlature of Louisianna.

And Neddie, MrFun wasn't speaking bull. The Reconstruction Era seems to be Fun's area of expertise.

He is right that the Union pulled its army out as a compromise in the disputed election of Hayes. I agree. That set off 80 some years of Jim Crow in the South, which was dominated by the Jackass party. The Republicans let them be due to the compromise. This does not make the Republican Party the same as the Democrat Party on civil rights.

It was always my understanding that the Republican Party still remained in support of black civil rights through its entire history. It is my understanding that the vast majority of blacks still voted Republican until the New Deal.

The 1960's saw the Dems split 50-50 on civil rights, with the Republican minority supporting the Dem minority to get civil rights legislation passed. How the Dems can suggest that "they" got the civil rights legislation passed over Republican opposition is beyond belief.

Then we saw what Richard Nixon did by creating affirmative action. Dems tend to ignore that in the '76 election, the South remained solidly in the Dems camp when the openly racist Carter ran for pres.

As I said, I have no idea when or where the Republican Party became a supporter of separate but equal, or any such crap. The Party remains committed to integration while the Dems remain committed to segregation while blaming Republicans for being racist. On school vouchers, for example, the main reason Dems oppose vouchers is to keep the de facto separation of white private schools from black public schools in our cites.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov



Yeah, except nobody called the Republicans "the party of racism." Strawmen abound...

Maybe you haven't, but Oerdin sure did.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
On school vouchers, for example, the main reason Dems oppose vouchers is to keep the de facto separation of white private schools from black public schools in our cites.

Or mabye because it's a terrible idea which would completely destroy the public school system.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yeah, a situation wherein they would have to abide civil rights legislation. How is this remotely different than what I was saying?

It comes down to approach to civil right implementation. Given the inevitbale change the party of the North again attempted to ram something down the south's throat. Rightly so perhaps but it all comes down to Results as you put it.

And this is relevant...how? I never suggested Nixon was a racist. He may have been, but that's not an issue here. He wasn't a Dixiecrat-turned-Republican, though, so he's irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that the Southern Dem leap to the Republicans didn't have anything to do with the civil rights opposition? Come on.

Irrelevent ehhh. A small leap of logic to traverse the chasm of your confusion.

Nixon masterminded the pickoff of disaffected southern dems. This was sucessful but also in the as large if not larger context of the Vetnam War. Nixon offered an exit strategy that Dems were unable to.

The extent to which he was able to convert southern states to Republican is most likely a function of the overhwlemingly poor performance of the Dems to articulate a cogent position on that war.

But with respect to Civil rights these same dissaffected Dem leaders were coerced and ultimately changed their views.

The point being of course that if Nixon masterminded the southern strategy then how was the republican party true to their racist roots but no they instead implemented a slew of civil rights reforms unequaled by the Dems. If he masterminded the southern strategy don't you just think that perhaps the honey approach he was able to use offered far better results than the vinegar approach by the Dems and in fact subverted southern dems from a racial intolerance to more moderate stances.

Guess what because he was reasonable he got the needed civil rights changes and changed the mind set of the south.

Stawman. Made no such claim.

You most certainly did by implying that the Republicans were racist specifically because of their inclusion of disaffected Dems. You made no allowance for their (southern Dems most of which are not even in any position of power save Lott)) change to more amenable positions but instead clearly and falsely imply the perversion of the Republicans.


What comes out clearly in all you and your lefty compatriots shpeil is that class warfare rhetoric is analagous to racial warfare. The two however do NOT equate.

To me the patronizing position of the Democratic party is far more racist than a party who is color blind.

Right, because the black electorate is *so* stupid that it couldn't see through obvious attempts to do such a thing. This is precisely why the Republicans can't win the black vote--they think they're dumb and view them as an electoral commodity.

Excuse me, wasn't all the hubub that Bush actually improved his turn out of blacks from 2000 election. I'm sorry if there is one party that treats the black vote as a captive commodity it is by far and away the Dems.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Are you suggesting only predominantly black areas vote for black candidates? Tell that to Obama.

Gee wow. Choices being Barrack Obama or Alan Keyes. Can you be more disingenuous?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara




Or mabye because it's a terrible idea which would completely destroy the public school system.

Maybe, maybe not.

But there are pretexts and then their are real reasons.