 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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...
quote:
I never got that impression. Seemed like he was using "nigger" 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 "nigger"? Such consistency...
Regardless, the point of the comment was that he didn't mean "nigger" to refer to race. As I said, it was a stupid comment, but it's pretty inarguable that his intent was not racist.
quote:
At any rate, I doubt you would be so forgiving if an ex-Klansmen who happened to be a Republican used the word "nigger" 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...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DerSchwarzfalke
|
|
As an aside, I find it odd and disturbingly inconsistent that the word "w4nker" gets starred out, but the word "nigger" does not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
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 bullshit.
"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 nigger 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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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? 
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 18-05-2005 at 21:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2005 10:05
|