Ditto on the mysterious, lamentable appearance of microencephalics. They do seem to be a convenient entourage for one, eh?
Oh, I did see that Au chimed in here. So here's my list of the track record on Republican 'racism'. Can you Democrats come up with anything comparable?
Republican Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves
1866: first civil rights act passed by Radical Republicans over a Presidential veto, blacks granted citizenship, segregation was forbidden
1868 Republicans passed the 14th amendment passed granting equal protection
1871 Republicans passed voting rights
Republican Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to invite an African-American to dinner in the White House.
1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.
1957 civil rights act pushed by Ike, passed . Sen Kennedy voted against it, A Democrat Senator filibustered it for 24 hrs, Senator Johnson watered it down so that it lacked enforcement
Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock to integrate Central High
1960 another civil rights act, again Dems kept enforcement measures out of it
1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Kennedy and Johnson get credit for this one. More than eighty percent of Republicans voted for both--due to Democrat opposition, neither would have passed without Republican support despite the fact that the Democrats held substantial majorities in both houses of Congress.
Nixon created the EEOC and expanded civil rights law.
Ronald Reagan signed the bill making MLK day a public holiday
Today the three highest ranking black government officials are all Republicans (Powell, Rice and Thomas)
Lash wrote:No. They like blacks now. They elevate conservative blacks and other so-called minorities to positions of POWER. You won't see that in the DEMOCRAT party!!!!
The last lynching I saw was a bunch of Democrats, trying to hoist up Clarence Thomas.
You actually think that racism is a trait specifically tied to democrats? Wow.
Lash
Quote:AU wrote
I should like to remind you the democratic solid south, the party of slavery and segregation became the republican solid south when the Democrats began to champion civil rights. The people you now label as pro slavery the lynchers, segregationists and church burners, are now the backbone of the republican party in the South.
Don't try to finese you way out of it. Can you dispute that statement? The Democates that you speak of are now now the backbone of the southern Republican party
Nah, au. Racists are smattered all through both parties, all races and everywhere.
But TODAY, the racist behavior is seen in the Democrat party.
ANTI-racist behavior is evident in the Republican party.
I just disputed it Au. Now produce your own list if you think you can better ours.
Lash wrote:If "he is Latino" is included in THEIR list of reasons to attack him, it is clearly racist.
For you to completely fabricate that Fox alluded to anyone being inferior is repugnant. And a cheap attempt to take the focus off of the incredibly transparent, disgusting racism of the Democrat party.
They are going to swing on their own rope.
Here, I'll go really slowly for you. If Obama runs for the Presidency one day, that will be a factor in Republican estimation of him as a risk (risk to win a lot of votes) because he is black and that will have voting probability consequence with a large black population. Likewise, for either party, when the first woman makes a run for the Presidency. To acknowledge that factor is not racist in any coherent sense of the term.
On the other hand, to make the charge that Republicans or their party would be guilty of racism simply in acknowledging the unique danger that Obama would pose would be inaccurate and morally repugnant.
Lash
Yes, racism is a fact of life. However, you will note it is the republican party that has done it's best to put obstacles in the way of black voting. Florida is a good example.
And I will reiterate and only because you brought up the subject. The solid democratic south is now the hotbed of republicanism because the Dems were champions of the civil right movement.
Foxy
What do you mean chimed in.
I'll explain patiently for you.
I cannot believe you are condoning barring a man from serving in a high, honorable position simply because he is Hispanic. No matter what the twisted logic, the effect is racist in the extreme.
He's not running for elected office. He deserves to be considered on the merits of his record, not barred by Democrats because they are afraid too many Republican minority nominees are showing them up for the paternalist racists they are.
That you are making excuses for this outrageous racism ...I have to say I really am shocked.
Au writes
Quote:Foxy
What do you mean chimed in.
I wasn't going to hijack your thread with a debate on racism, Au, but your participation was implied permission to include that. Actually in a way it does have a bearing as that will certainly be a part of the debate if the president nominates a woman or minority person. And again the debate won't be presented as racist, but will be framed that the candidate is 'not qualified' as Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice were all accused.
The south is now predominantly Republican because the Democrats abandoned their conservative base and the GOP filled the void they left there. Your assertion that it was all about civil rights simply won't wash as testified by the list I posted an hour or so ago.
Lash wrote:I'll explain patiently for you.
I cannot believe you are condoning barring a man from serving in a high, honorable position simply because he is Hispanic. No matter what the twisted logic, the effect is racist in the extreme.
He's not running for elected office. He deserves to be considered on the merits of his record, not barred by Democrats because they are afraid too many Republican minority nominees are showing them up for the paternalist racists they are.
That you are making excuses for this outrageous racism ...I have to say I really am shocked.
When Obama runs, which seems likely, there will be no whisper of a thought in RNC circles regarding the electoral consequences of his color? Heck, folks won't even notice, not to mention worry or speak explicitly? Would that be your claim then?
Of course, there will be conversation about how his race will affect voting. And, his sex appeal, and what his wife wore on Tuesday.... They won't want to prevent him from the Presidency due to his blackness, however. Stay with me here---it will be because of his party affiliation. (C'mon, you are better than this. Your hate is muddying your thinking.)
A Supreme Court nomination is not running for elected office. A man or woman should be considered on the merit of their record when being considered for Justice.
To be blocked from consideration due to ethnicity is racism, no matter how you dress it up.
Lash, the poor thing can't distinguish between acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of a legitimate opponent and blocking a nomination of a person because his ethnicity might be appealing to too many people.
Foxy
List shmist. Can you deny that the Democrats were in the forefront of the Civil rights movement. Can you deny that the southern democrats broke away from the party because of the championing of civil rights by that party? Can you deny that the once solid democratic south is now the republican south because of it. Can you deny it was the liberals for whom the conservatives have so much disdain were the driving force behind the civil right movement.
Robert Byrd wears a sheet.
She innumerated Republican strides for civil rights.
Why is the KKK party boy, Byrd, still such a Democrat icon?
au
Don't bother playing her game. She's had this stuff fed to her from the usual suspects. Simply understand this as a wedge strategy, to attempt to draw black voters away from the Democratic party by suggesting racism there in some greater proportion or in some unique quality not found in the Republican Party.
I don't even think that the RNC is measurably racist or at least any moreso than the set of workers at Safeway. These sorts of generalized smears are intellectually and morally repulsive.
But attention can be profitably drawn to any strategy which attempts to disenfranchise voters, regardless of who that targeted community might be (women, union members, IRA, chinese, etc). Such strategies are not necessarily racist in intent, but they sure are in consequence. They are particularly egregious when that community is disadvantaged to begin with.
Organizing to ensure your voter base gets out to vote is a good thing, good for democracy as more voices get heard and votes counted.
Organizing to suppress voters has the opposite effect and is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This whole discussion started with this statement from Blatham
Quote:This whole discussion started with this statements
Of course, that is baloney. Blacks, who vote overwhelmingly democrat (something on the order of 90%) are 800X more likely to have their votes uncounted as are whites. Vote suppression is a first drawer Rove technique for winning elections and the technique is explicitly taught at Republican training activist training camps. Here's something helpful.
But naw, he's not accusing the Republicans of racism.
Foxfyre wrote:This whole discussion started with this statement from Blatham
Quote:This whole discussion started with this statements
Of course, that is baloney. Blacks, who vote overwhelmingly democrat (something on the order of 90%) are 800X more likely to have their votes uncounted as are whites. Vote suppression is a first drawer Rove technique for winning elections and the technique is explicitly taught at Republican training activist training camps. Here's something helpful.
But naw, he's not accusing the Republicans of racism.
your high twitness
That makes Rove (and others involved) guilty of an electoral strategy which disenfranchises blacks in precisely those numbers noted above. That does
not make Republicans guilty of racism. It doesn't make you guilty, or Lash or Laura Bush. It does not even make the RNC guilty necessarily, unless there is a broad and understood agreement to disenfranchise that community. Who is guilty is each of the individuals who would act thusly.
