19
   

Harry Reid: racist or political realist?

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 08:14 pm
@dyslexia,
Dyslexia: racist or political realist?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 09:21 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Dyslexia: racist or political realist?
me? just an ordinary bigot, I thought that was evident after all, I'm a liberal.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 02:37 pm
Kareem on the subject, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kareem-abduljabbar/coppertone-politics_b_420165.html
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 03:22 pm
Quote:
There is no rational way that speaking about racial attitudes that have been in play since the beginning of our nation is the equivalent of endorsing a racist presidential candidate. But the conservatives insist it's a match. Go figure.

[from link in Osso's thread, above.]


Not our Finn, though. He would never proffer such a ludicrous suggestion. He's way too sophisticated, way too bright, way too in the know.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 03:29 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

negros are scary, negros with a dialect are really scary, I think it was Obama himself that said in South Carolina he was black enough to get the black democrat vote. man I'm so glad I'm as white as drivin snow.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 03:29 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Reid essentially called the electorate racist. He didn't express racists thoughts himself.

Well put.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 08:10 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So, without malicious intent, how could it be racist?


So, are you saying that as long as there is no intent to be racist, then its ok to make racist comments?


You need not assign to what I said a different meaning. I only meant what I said.

I believe the definition of "racist comments" has been expanded to include "politically correct" comments. Meaning any comment that can be possibly offensive, since it alludes to some "difference" can be considered racist. I thought "racist" meant that a particular group is considered "inherently different." The comment in question was about some White people's possible perception of the President as a candidate, not the candidate himself. If anything, the comment could be thought of as a comment about some White folks possible prejudices only. Now why should it suddenly appear as a racist comment about Blacks? The comment was about some Whites and their possible prejudices.



0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 08:34 pm
The entire Democratic Party only uses race to further their liberal socialist agenda, they are not in the slightest caring about ending racism. After all, remember KKK Byrd, one of their kingpins in Congress for decades, and don't forget Bill Clinton that considered Fullbright his mentor, one of the biggest southern Democrat racists you could find, plus Bill Clinton is on record during the last campaign as referring to Obama by saying "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

I think the Democrats were only planning to use Obama to further their aims, until his candidacy took off and he gained support from the anti-Clinton people, and then it got out of their control.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 08:53 pm
MLK's niece gets it. I would love to see millions of black people decide to leave the Democatic Party plantation, as many already have. Only the socialists will stay on the plantation, because they like the special treatment, and they want to see it continue. The people that honor individual freedom and liberty will sooner or later see the Democrats for the hypocrits they are and will become Republicans, as Martin Luther King probably was.

"MLK Jr.'s Niece Doesn't See Compliment in Reid's 'Negro Dialect' Comment"If Michael Steele or any other conservative had said anything like it, the remarks would be labeled racist and plastered over every available news outlet," Alveda King said in a statement released Tuesday. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/12/coalition-supporting-reid-negro-remark-starts-crack/
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 09:09 pm
@okie,
yes of course Okie, republicans have quite a history of supporting civil rights for niggers. we often forget that heritage, thanks for reminding us.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 09:52 pm
@dyslexia,
That was entirely unfair and inaccurate.

Republicans do indeed have a rather continuous record of supporting civil rights - starting with the Civil war and continuing through the 20th century. They have, however, rather consistently opposed what was euphamistically called "affirmative action" on the grounds that it was a dose of the same poison it was intended to cure.

Democrats have a far more complex and somewhat schizophrenic history on both extremes of the issue. It was Democrats, including those who then styled themselves as "progressive" who led the Jim Crow movement in the early 20th century. Their leader, Woodrow Wilson was a notorious racist. Later it was a coalition of powerful Democrats of the "solid South" who preserved it through WWII.

It wasn't until the liberal wing of the Democrat party divorced itself from the "solid South" and, together with the active support of the majority of Republicans, enacted legislation to break the systematic deprivation of civil rights in the South.

Later the parties diverged over issues related to affirmative action and race-based quotas and favoritism. The motivations on both sides of this dispute involved a mixture of both principle and political expediency. Not much basis there to prefer one to the other.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 10:03 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That was entirely unfair and inaccurate.


Funny, most Black folks don't think that's inaccurate at all. If for nothing other than socio-economic reasons, the Republican party has been working against the interests of their community for a long time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2010 10:13 pm
@georgeob1,
In the past 30 years, the sides have been pretty well set.

If you are Black or Latino or not a Christian or a Homosexual... the Republican party has consistently acted against your interests. (Conversely the Democratic party has often acted for your interests).

The rhetoric coming from some prominent Republicans is unapologetic; the idea that European Americans are the true Americans, that people from different cultures are a threat and that the US is a Christian nation.

You don't hear the idea that one culture should be dominant over others from Democrats.





okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 10:33 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Republicans do indeed have a rather continuous record of supporting civil rights - starting with the Civil war and continuing through the 20th century. They have, however, rather consistently opposed what was euphamistically called "affirmative action" on the grounds that it was a dose of the same poison it was intended to cure.

Democrats have a far more complex and somewhat schizophrenic history on both extremes of the issue. It was Democrats, including those who then styled themselves as "progressive" who led the Jim Crow movement in the early 20th century. Their leader, Woodrow Wilson was a notorious racist. Later it was a coalition of powerful Democrats of the "solid South" who preserved it through WWII.

It wasn't until the liberal wing of the Democrat party divorced itself from the "solid South" and, together with the active support of the majority of Republicans, enacted legislation to break the systematic deprivation of civil rights in the South.

Later the parties diverged over issues related to affirmative action and race-based quotas and favoritism. The motivations on both sides of this dispute involved a mixture of both principle and political expediency. Not much basis there to prefer one to the other.

George, good post. Rush points out all the time that many of the black organizations now claiming to represent all black people are nothing more than supporters of the ultra socialist agenda, not civil rights at all. I think I have heard him refer to the NAACP as the NAALCP, in which he injects the word "liberal" into the acronym, and we all know that ultra-liberalism is nothing more than socialism. Essentially, Democrats realized they could use the wedge of racism along with special gifts and special treatment for blacks in exchange for votes. Essentially, it is bribery of votes with special treatment, not racial equality or equal rights. If anything, it has extended and maintained the racial divide.

For any black person that wishes to leave the liberal or Democratic socialist plantation where they are taken care of in exchange for their votes, they can investigate and educate themselves by reading the following website, which points out alot of the stuff I have just talked about. Slavery really is providing something, a service or work, in exchange for being taken care of, and that is what the Democratic Party has learned to do. For anybody that is tired of that culture, read the following.

http://www.nbra.info/
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 10:39 am
@okie,
A quote from the website I posted above, from the National Black Republicans Association.

"Obama's Socialist Stake in the Heart of America” by Frances Rice demonstrates how the desire to elect our first black president caused a majority of Americans to ignore Obama’s Marxist leanings and his record as the most liberal member of the Senate " a blindness that is resulting in our nation being sacrificed on the altar of affirmative action."

http://www.nbra.info/

http://cache.trustedpartner.com/images/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Affirmative%20Action%20Obama.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 10:55 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

In the past 30 years, the sides have been pretty well set.

If you are Black or Latino or not a Christian or a Homosexual... the Republican party has consistently acted against your interests. (Conversely the Democratic party has often acted for your interests).

The rhetoric coming from some prominent Republicans is unapologetic; the idea that European Americans are the true Americans, that people from different cultures are a threat and that the US is a Christian nation.

You don't hear the idea that one culture should be dominant over others from Democrats.

Dictators do not care who they rule over, is that what you are saying, ebrown? And sure, Republicans do not believe in slavery, they do not believe in the government giving fish to everyone in eschange for votes, they instead believe each person has the ability and the responsibility to go catch their own fish, and to own their own property and to support their own families, they do not believe that is the responsibility of government to give to every person according to their need, which of course requires taking it from the people that have more than the government thinks that they need in order to give it to others.

Perhaps you do not like the concept of owning property, after all that is a Judeo-Christian concept, right?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 11:04 am
@georgeob1,
"unfair and inaccurate"? really George? From Harry Truman on the republican party as pushed the zero-sum methodoly (when you give minorites equal civil rights, you take away rights from white anglo americans. this is especially true of voter rights but also aplies to educaction/housing/employment rights.
while it's true the democrats haven't done well in this regard it's pretty much inane to say Republicans have done a remarkable jobs in this regard. Your support of Okie in this regard is amazing as would be my support of Advocate of JTT. Next thing would you supporting Foyfyre's claim to be libertarian. Boggles the mind, really!
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 11:19 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
From Harry Truman on the republican party as pushed the zero-sum methodoly

Uh, Dys? Harry Truman was a Democrat. Perhaps you mean Vice president Richard Nixon? Or president Dwight Eisenhower? Or Senator Joe McCarthy?
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 11:23 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
From Harry Truman on the republican party as pushed the zero-sum methodoly

Uh, Dys? Harry Truman was a Democrat. Perhaps you mean Richard Nixon? Or Joe McCarthy?
no, I meant Harry Truman, it was the reaction to Harry Truman's integration of the military that stated the republican zero-sum thinking.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2010 11:24 am
@dyslexia,
I see.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:04:45