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

[LTEC!]

There aren't enough blacks in Mexico for people to bother to be racist towards them, at best people will say..hey, look -a black person!!

Mexicans are not used to be PC in the american way and therefore, words can be misunderstood. We don't take offense that easily until there's blatant offense... (but you don't really want to offend a mexican if you want to keep your health).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned

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.

Whats more they reinforce the cannard by implying Reagan won by playing the race card. Another huge pile of doo-doo. Reagan won quite simply in his first term because of the weakness and ineptitude of Carter.

[Ned]

Originally posted by LTEC!
There aren't enough blacks in Mexico for people to bother to be racist towards them, at best people will say..hey, look -a black person!!

Mexicans are not used to be PC in the american way and therefore, words can be misunderstood. We don't take offense that easily until there's blatant offense... (but you don't really want to offend a mexican if you want to keep your health).

No, but the remark is still clearly and unambiguously a slur on black Americans.

[LTEC!]

Not really. I have to agree with Master Zen on this note:

What Fox probably meant to say was that blacks, which have traditionally been the major and most exploited minority in the US now are a bit up the economic ladder and don't do the jobs that Mexicans would do.

Fox has ran his mouth saying stupid stuff in the past, but I am pretty sure he didn't mean it as a slur against anyone. US's PCorrectness is "learned" and is not thaught in other countries. Not an excuse for someone in Fox's position because the ambiguous comment has certainly slapped him in the face.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
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.

Oh what patent bull****.

"I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." - George Wallace

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches." - Strom Thurmond

These weren't quotes of people objecting to how desegregation was being implemented, these were men who believed at the time that it should NEVER happen. It wasn't about method for them, it was indeed about the results. Nice try with the apologist claptrap, however. Reminds my of the apologetics about how the civil war was all about states rights and had nothing to do with slavery. Yeah, right.

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

Yes, and would they have been coerced to do so without a massive shift in public sentiment towards civil rights policy? No. And this was policy being pushed by Northerners, both Democrat and Republican. So claims the Democratic party was more a "racist" one in ideology than the Republicans (or that this would matter in today's world) are ridiculous.

Were the Republicans skillful in their Southern Strategy? Sure. But the notion it was done out of an overall agenda of converting Southerners to racial tolerance is absurd. It was done to break their opponent's hold on the South. Given Nixon's private comments on racial matters, it's pretty silly to think otherwise. He was a cynical politician who knew which way the wind was blowing culturally and seized it. Smart man.

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.

It's amazing to me how you totally lose track of the argument. Perhaps, if you would read carefully, the point of me bringing up the Southern Dem defection was to counter the assinine assertion that because Robert Byrd is still a senator and because many Southern Dems were racists back 40 years ago, they were therefore a racist party. So any implication of the Republicans being overall "racist" because of this is in your head, not mine.

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.

Nice rant, but doesn't hold any water. Let's see what's more patronizing: A party that actually values minorities and is replete with them in positions up and down the line, or a party that only splashes up minorities on convention TV shots?

The fact is, the big failing in this "logic" about the Dems is that the Dem leadership is actually comprised of minorities and they form part of its voice, whereas the Republicans are not and yet still seem fit to try and lecture them on what minorities should feel/think/want. That's patronizing, and part of the point that Republicans are clueless on racial matters.

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.

The second sentence is a total non-sequitur with the previous one. So if a candidate improves modestly (we're talking a couple of percentage points) with a certain demographic, that proves the other party treats that demographic as a commodity? Does not compute. How much of that uptick was about the personal weakness of Kerry as a candidate?

Of course, this still ignores the fact that 88% of blacks still voted for the Democrat. I guess in your world, it's because they are stupid and gullible and can't think well enough to vote for the "right" person.

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

Hey, why not check out the polls wherein Obama was ahead of his white competitor 2:1 even before his little sex scandal broke.

I'm curious to note why you'd harp on this--are you saying that blacks can only win in black-majority districts?

[chequita guevara]

Like NYC and Virginia?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
No, but the remark is still clearly and unambiguously a slur on black Americans.

From the way an American thinks and speaks, maybe. From the way a Mexican thinks and speaks, no it isn't. No two peoples have the same outlook on things so don't expect other country's reaction to be the same. What went through Fox's mind at that moment was hardly what would have gone through the mind of say, Bush, if he had said it.

Even in the most PC perspective I still don't understand where the racism is.

- Mexicans get the crappiest jobs.
- In the past, Blacks used to have the crappiest jobs.
- Blacks no longer have the crappiest jobs. Crappy? Yes, but not the crappiest.
- Blacks no longer want to do the crappiest jobs since Mexicans will do them.

Explain to me exactly where the racism is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Chiming in, I think Master Zen is correct. Fox most likely meant that blacks used to do the crappy jobs Mexicans do and now that they are richer, even blacks don't do those crappy jobs anymore.

[Caligastia]

It's not that Mexicans are willing to do crappy jobs that nobody else wants to do, it's that Mexicans are willing to get paid crappy pay that nobody else wants to get paid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

... and that's what makes it a crappy job.

[Caligastia]

Crappy pay and a crappy job are two different things. You can have a crappy job and get paid a decent wage. If you don't have illegals driving down wages, that is.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Crappy pay and a crappy job are two different things. You can have a crappy job and get paid a decent wage.

Under the context of what we're arguing, a crappy job and a crappy pay are exactly the same thing.

If you don't have illegals driving down wages, that is.

Why don't you blame the market for that? Why don't you blame Wal-Mart and other of the hundreds of companies who willingly hire at dirt-cheap prices. Why don't you blame the greed for profit of captialism for the lower wages.

But no, blame the illegals. Oh right, you're a racist. I keep forgetting.

[Caligastia]

In that case these jobs were made crappy by the people who are willing to work for such crappy pay.

And I do blame the companies. I also blame the US government for slacking off on fining companies who hire illegals. As for the illegals themselves, they are mere pawns. I hold no grudge against them.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Crappy pay and a crappy job are two different things. You can have a crappy job and get paid a decent wage. If you don't have illegals driving down wages, that is.

Before I sold it and got out of that mess, CRG's top 10 earners for delivery personnel were all Hispanic, the least of them earning $45k, the biggest earning $200k. Talking to my father a couple of months ago, he showed me their bi-weekly (two times a week) payroll - there were some checks for $10,000 to their Hispanic van crews. They have one Hispanic crew, comprised of 8 people, who made over $700,000 in 2004 and over 20 crews (of varying sizes), all Hispanic (except one), who made over $100k.

All told, each person makes about $40-70k/year delivering phone books. It's crappy per-book pay, it's a crappy job, but nobody does it with the intensity and, frankly, intelligence of the Hispanic crews.

Just my personal observation.

[Caligastia]

Were those people illegals John? This isn't about hispanics.