# Racism and the Republican Party-as if!



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2008)

Well, an exchange that got somewhat out of hand-and justifiably so-on  this thread, along with a trend of continuing, obsessive and inane posts on the racism of the Democratic party, supported by quotes that are often from 50-100 years ago, led me to start another thread with this post; Ill start this post with some quotes from the most prominent of Republicans, a man respected by Republicans and Democrats as a great President, if not the greatest-a man revered by many for the Emancipation Proclamation-the man who freed the slaves, and made all men equal-I give you, at his finest,
Abraham Lincoln: 



> "Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this?" - Abraham Lincoln (From Fragments: Notes for Speeches, September 1859, Vol. III, p.399 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).
> 
> "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the White and Black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race. . . I give. . . the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last, stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." - Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Vol. III, p. 145-146 of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln).
> 
> ...




Of course, the War between the States became a war for abolition, and Lincoln did what he thought was best for the country-and such quotes are evidence of his being a product of his times and upbringing. Who knows what he would have had to say had he lived past the age of  56-to the ripe old age of John Adams, our first Vice President, and second President, who lived to be almost 91. But Lincoln got what many get for doing what they think is right-however they feel personally: a bullet in the head.

Of course, I could use those quotes to show the Republican partys history of racism, as some might,  but thats not at all the point Im trying to make here. 

Later, LBJ  championed  the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as a Democratic _President_, doing what he thought was best for his country. As a congressman from Texas, however, he opposed earlier civil rights legislation-of course, he was doing his job by _representing his constituency,_ and their wishes. In one instance or the other he went against however he felt personally, and did what he thought was the right-or politic-thing to do. After he passed the Civil Rights Act, what was previously a Democratic South started voting Republican, abandoning a party that had *not* supported what was, essentially, _a southern ideology of oppression and segregation towards blacks_-whatever forms such things might have taken in the north of the country notwithstanding.

Malcom X spent most of his life as something of a racist, and some might say with good reason. He shook off the laughable ideologies of the Nation of Islam, as well as his own racism, though, to say that he could no longer embrace complete separation of the races, and would accept help from anyone, of any race, in any quarter, for the furthering of his goal of prosperity and equality for the members of his race. Shame that he got what so many get for speaking their truth: a bullet in the head. Sadly, Malcom is chiefly remembered by many for his racism and militancy, rather than his later conversion (flip-flop? Epiphany?) to a more moderate stance.

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed civil rights right up through 1964, and was a member of the KKK at one time. Hes since come to call his KKK membership a foolishness of his youth, and say that he was wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act. He tried to increase the budget for the Martin Luther King Memorial by   $10 million, saying that  _with the passage of time, I have come to learn that his dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently._ Ive met the man several times, and, well, hes *old*, and a product of his time and place-as we all are-but hes tried, I believe, and continues to try to be a good man, as well as a good politician-though his positions on civil rights and race continue to be all over the map, as are some of his statements. Hes said that hed take back his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, if he could-that he sees how the country needed it,  and has improved because of it.are we to call him a racist simply because he obviously was one, once, and may even still harbor racist thoughts (as, I believe, we all do) or are we to believe that a person-and therefore an entire party-can change?

Or, should we absurdly, inanely, simplistically and repeatedly label Republicans as racist, for what  the great man and great President some would call their founder said, more than 100 years ago?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 6, 2008)

Lying about the facts doesn't change them


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 6, 2008)

What's inaccurate?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Lying about the facts doesn't change them


 
And accusing him of lying doesn't mean he did.  C wut I did thur?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2008)

The difference is pretty simple. When a republican, lets use Trent Lott as an example, utters words even construed, (by great leaps of idiocy) to be tolerant of racism REPUBLICANS demand he leave his leadership position and later his office. What democrats have called for Joe Biden's ouster? Had a republican said the dreaded N word on national TV, he'd have been run out of Washington on the proverbial rail, when Robert Byrd (He of every third public structure in W VA) says it, no big deal.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2008)

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Trent Lott at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, as reported Dec. 6 on  ABC, The News.

"I want to tell you, ladies and gentleman, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Strom Thurmond, then-governor of South Carolina, in a speech from his 1948 "Dixiecrat" presidential campaign.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2008)

> In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. Im not joking.


You Tube Video
Senator and Recent Presidential hopeful Joe Biden (Not a republican...) Still serving in the US Senate.


> "My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white ******s. I've seen a lot of white ******s in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."


Senator Robert Byrd (Not a republican, W VA) Still in the US Senate. CNN Story
You Tube Video
(Time:1:18)
Saying something nice, to an old man, at his birthday party is not using a slur on national TV.


----------



## Ping898 (Apr 7, 2008)

Well there was always this former Republican Senator....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_(U.S._politician)
And his party didn't kick him out, the voters did....


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin...e_election,_2006#Allen.27s_Macaca_controversy
> During a speech, Allen paused, then began referring to Sidarth:
> &#8220; 	This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great. We're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here and you show it to your opponent because he's never been there and probably will never come. [...] Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.	&#8221;
> 
> ...



I imagine there is racism or bigotry in every nook and cranny of every organization...and the republicans are included...that's not to say the democrats or independents are angels, just that you can't say one is and another isn't....


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 7, 2008)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427486 

Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## Marginal (Apr 8, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Lying about the facts doesn't change them


This Liberal Facism trend is fascinating. How the historical roots of a party or organization, or who had what mustache at what time indicate that any later followers in a tradition that has gone through countless permutations believe the exact same thing as the founders... Deep stuff. 

By the same reasoning, are all right wingers are staunch supporters of the French monarchy?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 8, 2008)

I can't see where the historical roots of any party has to do with the problems that exist today. What is a Republican now? Who are the Democrats now? These parties have switched issues to the point where the identity gets scewed over a century or so. Some speech from the eighteen hundreds has no bearing on who's who and what they believe today.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Apr 8, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> I can't see where the historical roots of any party has to do with the problems that exist today. What is a Republican now? Who are the Democrats now? These parties have switched issues to the point where the identity gets scewed over a century or so. Some speech from the eighteen hundreds has no bearing on who's who and what they believe today.
> Sean


That is a load of crap, in this instance. The republican party was the party of abolition, founded for that express purpose. The democrat party has a long and consistent history of racism, ignoring it just doesn't make it go away. 
That republicans passed, over democratic opposition, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and every civil rights act from the beginning of the party through the 1960's is hardly switching issues. That quotes from democrats 150 years ago are not much different on race from Joe Biden or Robert Byrd in the last five years, has a little bit of bearing...
Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.


> You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.


 Howard Dean, the same Howard Dean, by the way, who said [Speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus,] 





> The Republican Party "couldn't get this many people of color in a single room" unless "they had the hotel staff in here."


See the quotes and videos in this post, neither are 5 years old, let alone 100...


----------



## Marginal (Apr 8, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.


Nah, it's a silly talking point that doesn't actually prove that the GOP isn't comprised of racists. (Since that democratic opposition you're talking about eventually jumped ship and went Republican. Telling that they were welcomed and allowed to become party institutions, like Strom.) All your talking point proves that Bush likes to appoint family friends and folks that'll cheerfully play their part as cronies. Toss out the Bill of Rights? Ok! Give that true patriot a medal.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2008)

The real racism of the Republican party doesn't actually lie within their platform, or their stance on the issues. Most of the issues-like immigration or affirmative action that lend themselves to or be miscontrued to be what might be called a racist stance-are too nuanced and multifaceted to be called outright "racist" by most reasonable people, no matter which side of the issue one finds oneself on-heck, you'll find Republicans and Democrats supporting both sides of those issues, and all with good reasons to that have nothing to do with race.

Of course,  the Democrat party has proposed or written and the Republican party has opposed almost every single form of civil-rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this is also not where their real racism lies.

The real racism of the Republican party lies in how they conduct business-how they campaign, and how they manipulate. The Republican party has a history of using racism to win campaigns, and will continue to do so.Willie Horton comes to mind.One of Ronald Reagans first actions as President was to try and circumvent federal law by allowing Bob Jones to keep their tax exempt status in spite of their clearly practicing racial discrimination by forbidding interracial dating.

Since Eisenhower left office,  the party of Lincoln has desecrated his memory by opposing almost every effort to extend equal rights to anyone who isn't white or male. They have played the race card in every presidential election they have won since 1968. As long as Democrats don't turn racism into a character issue, Republicans will continue to use it as an instrument of political persuasion


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 9, 2008)

Big Don said:


> That is a load of crap, in this instance. The republican party was the party of abolition, founded for that express purpose. The democrat party has a long and consistent history of racism, ignoring it just doesn't make it go away.
> That republicans passed, over democratic opposition, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and every civil rights act from the beginning of the party through the 1960's is hardly switching issues. That quotes from democrats 150 years ago are not much different on race from Joe Biden or Robert Byrd in the last five years, has a little bit of bearing...
> Hell, that people marginalize the appointments of the first black Secretary of State, the first black woman Secretary of State and the first hispanic Attorney General of the United States because it wasn't done by their party, is telling.
> Howard Dean, the same Howard Dean, by the way, who said [Speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus,]
> See the quotes and videos in this post, neither are 5 years old, let alone 100...


I doubt your typical democrat is against civil rights now but you just keep your head in the sand there.
Sean


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 12, 2008)

elder999 said:


> The real racism of the Republican party doesn't actually lie within their platform, or their stance on the issues. Most of the issues-like immigration or affirmative action that lend themselves to or be miscontrued to be what might be called a racist stance-are too nuanced and multifaceted to be called outright "racist" by most reasonable people, no matter which side of the issue one finds oneself on-heck, you'll find Republicans and Democrats supporting both sides of those issues, and all with good reasons to that have nothing to do with race.
> 
> Of course, the Democrat party has proposed or written and the Republican party has opposed almost every single form of civil-rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this is also not where their real racism lies.


 
Ok, so it appears that you agree that the Republican Party, before 1964 (even though they also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1968) supported civil right issues based on race. I want to know what Democratic legislation, based on race as that is the topic, the Republicans have opposed.



> The real racism of the Republican party lies in how they conduct business-how they campaign, and how they manipulate. The Republican party has a history of using racism to win campaigns, and will continue to do so.Willie Horton comes to mind.One of Ronald Reagans first actions as President was to try and circumvent federal law by allowing Bob Jones to keep their tax exempt status in spite of their clearly practicing racial discrimination by forbidding interracial dating.


Since Eisenhower left office, the party of Lincoln has desecrated his memory by opposing almost every effort to extend equal rights to anyone who isn't white or male. They have played the race card in every presidential election they have won since 1968. As long as Democrats don't turn racism into a character issue, Republicans will continue to use it as an instrument of political persuasion[/quote]

You talk about the idea that the Republicans used race to win every election since 1968. How did they do this? Can you give some examples?

In regards to Willie Horton, the first person to bring him up during the 1988 election was none other then Al Gore (D). Considering that the issue was one of releasing violent criminals on furlough programs, it was a perfectly debatable point, considering Dukakis supported the program which allowed Willie Horton to do what he did. It just so happens that Willie Horton was black. Prove that the point was race-based, and not one of law enforcement / public safety consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton



To me, the real gist of the argument is what policies have the Republicans or Democrats enacted that has either hurt or hindered minority citizens of this country. In my estimation, the Democratic Party has done far more damage with its coddling of minorities than the Republican pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality. The very idea that I can not make it in this world unless some government run commission, or enacted affirmative action/quota system is completely offensive to me, as it should be to all minorities. 

And it is amazing how we continue to demean those minorities who do make something of their lives (ie, Colin Powell, Condaliza Rice, and Alberto Gonzalez). Oh, that is excludind sports figures, I guess. It amazes me how minorities all have to have the same thought processes (agree with affirmative action, white man holding you down, ghetto mentallity) or else we are sell-outs. God forbid, we can have the same diversity of thought as white people in America, and not be considered self-hating.

The real politics of race are not that the Democratic Party continues to believed that we should be enslaved, but that we are too helpless to help oursleves, and need the white man to protect us. In that way they show that we are inferior.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 17, 2008)

I am trying to restart this thread (and hopefully, though I doubt it, be successful).  My question again to those how think that the Republican party has racist policies or is against civil right is how is this so?  What proof is there of this position.  What legislation or policies or have the Republicans supported / did not support that supports this?

And just to put it out there, I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question.  This belief seems to be fairly widespread (at least among blacks and liberals), but I have yet to see any basis in fact.  If its true, then I want to know.  

I hope someone can take me up on my challenge.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 17, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> What legislation or policies or have the Republicans supported / did not support that supports this?



How about the Southern Strategy?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 17, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> How about the Southern Strategy?


 
Very interesting information.  But I have to say that pandering for votes, by either side, is hardly compelling in saying that the Republicans are the new racist party.  In the same article, it says that Hilary Clinton is doing now with Obama what can be considered the Southern Strategy.  So does that mean that the pendulum has again swung back the other way, and Democrats are the racists again?

Even some of the "evidence" used to support the Republican use of the Southern Stategy is conjecture at best after Nixon, especially with regard to the Regan campaign.  This includes such things as the "code words" (busing, states rights, etc.).  Quite frankly, as a conservative Black American, I agree with many of the States Rights arguments.  Of course, I am sure that you would find it hard to believe that I want to go ahead and be a slave.

Let me give you an example.  During the 108th Congress, Republicans attempted to have the expiring provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act made permanent.  Who stopped it?  The members of the Congressional Black Caucus.  Why?  Because it was a tool that they would attempt to use against the Republicans who thought (and rightly so, IMO) that the necessity of the Act was outdated.  It is a way to make Black Americans believe that the Republicans were against the *right* of Blacks to vote, which the Voting Rights Act had nothing to do with.

I think a more convincing argument, if there is one, would have to deal with legislation supported or not supported by either party.  But even here, some of those arguments would be subject to interpretation.  For instance, racial quotas.

Comments?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You talk about the idea that the Republicans used race to win every election since 1968. How did they do this? Can you give some examples?


 


> In regards to Willie Horton, the first person to bring him up during the 1988 election was none other then Al Gore (D). Considering that the issue was one of releasing violent criminals on furlough programs, it was a perfectly debatable point, considering Dukakis supported the program which allowed Willie Horton to do what he did. It just so happens that Willie Horton was black. Prove that the point was race-based, and not one of law enforcement / public safety consideration.



There certainly was a public safety consideration, and Horton's actions-and the program that allowed it-were contemptible. Of course, that program was established by Dukakis's predecessor, a _Republican_.

And Horton never went by "Willie"; his name was "William," and, by most accounts, he was sometimes called "Wimpy"-which might have been black enough.And, from your very own wiki page, we get this gem of subtle, concealed manipulation in the Bush campaign's use of Horton:



> Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running a campaign ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Roger Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menacing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image *"every suburban mother's greatest fear."* The ad was run as an independent expenditure, separate from the Bush campaign, which claimed, as is legally required, not to have had any role in its production.


 

I'll get to the rest of your  initial revival post in a minute-though I want to say that if you look at the original post, it was hardly my intention to call the Republican party racist. Both parties have practiced and continued to use tactics that target racial demographics-this _is_, like it or not, a form of racism. I don't think either party is particularly invested in keeping anyone down though.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 17, 2008)

hmmm,
the Morman racism thread
the republican racism thread

anyone else seeing a theme with Elder?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> hmmm,
> the Morman racism thread
> the republican racism thread
> 
> anyone else seeing a theme with Elder?


 
Just wait........


----------



## elder999 (Apr 17, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The difference is pretty simple. When a republican, lets use Trent Lott as an example, utters words even construed, (by great leaps of idiocy) to be tolerant of racism REPUBLICANS demand he leave his leadership position and later his office. What democrats have called for Joe Biden's ouster? Had a republican said the dreaded N word on national TV, he'd have been run out of Washington on the proverbial rail, when Robert Byrd (He of every third public structure in W VA) says it, no big deal.



Trent Lott resigned from office to circumvent  The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, and start a lobbying firm, which he did this year. He made the Strom Thrumond comments in 2002, and stayed in office until 2007. It's commendable that the Republicans said that they didn't want him representing him, but there were no calls for him to leave office.

Joe Biden has always been something of a tool when he's not scripted-and has long served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Comittee on Foreign Relations, both of which he has chaired, but was not chairing during the latest bit of idiocy, and probably will never chair again. He has, incidentally, supported a great many Republican measures, such as bankruptcy reform.

Robert Byrd's use of the "n word" was unambiguous and prefaced-with the word _"white,"_ and he was making a cultural statement, albeit a rather clumsy one.He later apologized, of course-later on the very same program. He's also pretty much repudiated his racist past, and has a pretty solid "pro-Civil Rghts" record, with the NAACP, anyway-though it's easy to say that he's a racist merely for opposing Republican nominees that are also minorities, as he did with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, one could also make the case that he did so because....well, because they were _Republican nominees._


----------



## Marginal (Apr 17, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I am trying to restart this thread (and hopefully, though I doubt it, be successful).  My question again to those how think that the Republican party has racist policies or is against civil right is how is this so?  What proof is there of this position.  What legislation or policies or have the Republicans supported / did not support that supports this?


The border fence.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 17, 2008)

Marginal said:


> The border fence.


Criminals are not a race. Neither, by the way, is Mexican a race.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Trent Lott resigned from office to circumvent  The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act,


But, we have only your, clearly biased word for that...





> He made the Strom Thrumond comments in 2002, and stayed in office until 2007. It's commendable that the Republicans said that they didn't want him representing him, but there were no calls for him to leave office.


I'm going to assume your memory is fuzzy rather than call you a liar. However:





> But some Democrats were angry. Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former Vice President Al Gore told CNN that the comment was "racist."


 CNN says there was at least ONE call for him to leave office...


> Joe Biden has always been something of a tool


 That excuses his blatantly racist comments, how?


> Robert Byrd's use of the "n word" was unambiguous and prefaced-with the word _"white,"_ and he was making a cultural statement, albeit a rather clumsy one.He later apologized, of course-later on the very same program. He's also pretty much repudiated his racist past, and has a pretty solid "pro-Civil Rghts" record, with the NAACP, anyway-though it's easy to say that he's a racist merely for opposing Republican nominees that are also minorities, as he did with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, one could also make the case that he did so because....well, because they were _Republican nominees._


So when a democrat uses the N word, it is ok, if he apologizes, a republican saying something nice to an old man at his birthday party, he should be censured, and/or resign... No double standard there...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> *"every suburban mother's greatest fear."*


 A raping murderer shouldn't be a cause for fear?





> I'll get to the rest of your  initial revival post in a minute-though I want to say that if you look at the original post, it was hardly my intention to call the Republican party racist. Both parties have practiced and continued to use tactics that target racial demographics-this _is_, like it or not, a form of racism. I don't think either party is particularly invested in keeping anyone down though.


The democratic party has to keep selling the lie that republicans are racist to keep minority votes


----------



## Big Don (Apr 17, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Robert Byrd's use of the "n word" was unambiguous and prefaced-with the word _"white,"_


Hillary Clinton reportedly prefaced the word "Kike" with the word "F--king" does that make _that_ ok, too?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 17, 2008)

snap

that was funny, but in fairness not really a fair comparison


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2008)

Big Don said:


> A raping murderer shouldn't be a cause for fear?
> The democratic party has to keep selling the lie that republicans are racist to keep minority votes



First off, I need to point out that it was you who said the Republicans made Trent Lott resign from the Senate, when in fact, they didn't-who cares what Jesse Jackson and AL Gore had to say about it? Neither of them held any office of worth at the time........

And, actually, Don, don't you think it would be more accurate to say that the democratic party keeps minority votes by supporting welfare, medicare, and other "social assistance" programs?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 18, 2008)

Gee, and don't they also claim republicans want to starve the elderly, poor, and colored?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 18, 2008)

elder999 said:


> There certainly was a public safety consideration, and Horton's actions-and the program that allowed it-were contemptible. Of course, that program was established by Dukakis's predecessor, a _Republican_.
> 
> And Horton never went by "Willie"; his name was "William," and, by most accounts, he was sometimes called "Wimpy"-which might have been black enough.And, from your very own wiki page, we get this gem of subtle, concealed manipulation in the Bush campaign's use of Horton:
> 
> I'll get to the rest of your initial revival post in a minute-though I want to say that if you look at the original post, it was hardly my intention to call the Republican party racist. Both parties have practiced and continued to use tactics that target racial demographics-this _is_, like it or not, a form of racism. I don't think either party is particularly invested in keeping anyone down though.


 

Horton did commit his crime while on furlough in a suburb.  You could argue that the were simply being techicnally correct in their comment.  Besides, during this time, more and more black people were moving to the suburbs, so  that would have included black suburban moms.

And I am not arguing the merits of the furlough program itself, as I am sure you understand, regardless of who started it.  But rather the use of Horton as a campaign strategy.

Now, I will grant you, all of that may not be on their minds when the as was made.  However, I will again go back to the point that all politicians shape their message.  In that way, they are both, Republicans and Democrats, homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist, Americanist, etc.  But that all depends on who they are talking to at the time.  The demographics of thier audience.

One note, I didnt mean to imply that you were calling Republicans racist.  I am sorry ifyou got that impression.  It is simply that the common interpretation that the Republicans have somehow changed into the new party of the white man.

[quote*=marginal]*
The border fence.
[/quote]

Ok. What about the border fence?  First, I would like you to explain it in my interpretation of the border fence.  How is it rasict to pyhsically secure your most porous border from the most prevelent ethnicity trying to illegaly cross into the United States.  Including the consequences of which are lost jobs to American citizens and low wages in jobs.  And that also doesnt include the One Billion Dollars in benefits (in California) a year that illegal aliens, mostly from south of the U.S. take.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 18, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Horton did commit his crime while on furlough in a suburb. You could argue that the were simply being techicnally correct in their comment. Besides, during this time, more and more black people were moving to the suburbs, so that would have included black suburban moms.


 
That seems like equivocation to me-during that time, _my_ family had lived in the suburbs for almost 20 years, and we hadn't seen many more black people moving to them.




5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ok. What about the border fence? First, I would like you to explain it in my interpretation of the border fence. How is it rasict to pyhsically secure your most porous border from the most prevelent ethnicity trying to illegaly cross into the United States. Including the consequences of which are lost jobs to American citizens and low wages in jobs. And that also doesnt include the One Billion Dollars in benefits (in California) a year that illegal aliens, mostly from south of the U.S. take.


 

The fence is a sham-most illegal immigrants that lead to all those consequences come into the country on legal visas and stay after they expire.


----------



## Ray (Apr 18, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ok. What about the border fence?  First, I would like you to explain it in my interpretation of the border fence.  How is it rasict to pyhsically secure your most porous border from the most prevelent ethnicity trying to illegaly cross into the United States.  Including the consequences of which are lost jobs to American citizens and low wages in jobs.  And that also doesnt include the One Billion Dollars in benefits (in California) a year that illegal aliens, mostly from south of the U.S. take.


You have to help me with "ethnic."  Plenty of people in Mexico and South America are white, asian and black.

I thought the fence was a means of keeping non-citizens from sneaking in when nobody's looking?  Like the Great Wall of China, wait, didn't that just keep innovation out?


----------



## Josh (Apr 18, 2008)

Walls and fences don't work. 

As long as America has chances for illegal immigrants to advance, they will come. As long as the process is flawed and $$$, More will come the "illegal" way.

Besides, who is going to build that border wall? The illegal immigrants?

Think about it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 19, 2008)

One could argue that the border fence would be absolutely ineffectual, but that's not the point of the thread.  The point is whether or not such a policy is based on racist beliefs.  If so, make your point to that matter.  I don't think it is.

My point was that there are many, many other reasons why a concept of a border fence would be anything but racist.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> The fence is a sham-most illegal immigrants that lead to all those consequences come into the country on legal visas and stay after they expire.


 
I will say this though.  According to wikipedia, in 2006, 55% of illegal immigrants are from illegal border crossings, up from previous years.  I agree that visa overstays are a problem.  Also, 82% are from countries south of the United States, hence why it is looked at as a bigger problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

And yes, there are many reasons that illegal immigrants come to the United States.  But again, on topic, are the efforst made to stop it based on racial profiles?


----------



## k_raben (Apr 22, 2008)

My post might be way off base. 

I don't think that the Republican party is racist. All the Republican party is is a group of individuals who work together for a common shared goal. Same with the Democratic, Libertarian, Green and other parties. I gotta figure they have a charter, and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't state that they are racist.

I think everyone has racist tendencies, that's just part of human nature.

What you can look at is people who are racist and how they affiliate themselves. Are people who are more vocaly racist likely to be Republicans or Democrats. I think that in America today, most people who have strong racist feelings tend to affiliate with the Republican party over the Democratic party. Between the two major parties, will the Grandmaster of the KKK be more likely to vote for McCain or Obama/Clinton. 

This hasn't always been the case and it doesn't always hold true. David Duke was a Repbulican member of the Louisiana House of Representative and ran for president both as a Republican and a Democrat. 

Illegal imigration is just the current scare tactic to deflect attention from real issues used by people who want to avoid them. It's like gay mariage back in 2004. You would hear about it everyday, and once the election was over it went away.

I don't think that illegal imigration is not so much a racial issue as it is a financial issue. My opinion on illegal imigration is that the current focus the imigrants is wrong. If we really wanted to keep illegal imigrants out, then we need to take away the incentive for them to come. I think the best way to do that would be to heavily fine any company caught employing illegals. Make the fines stiff. If they go bankrupt, so what. The problem with passing this type of legislation is that the people who seem to be the most vocal on anti-imigration issues are the Republicans, and they tend to be the one's who favor business.

Go figure.


----------



## Josh (Apr 29, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> One could argue that the border fence would be absolutely ineffectual, but that's not the point of the thread.  The point is whether or not such a policy is based on racist beliefs.  If so, make your point to that matter.  I don't think it is.
> 
> My point was that there are many, many other reasons why a concept of a border fence would be anything but racist.





 Racist? Probably in some peoples minds. I think the percentage of people who advocate for said wall are in fact closet racists is higher than we are led to believe. I truly believe that a lot of this "protect our borders fr0m t3h terr0ism" is clearly ********. "Terrorists" Can come in from the northern border or the coasts too. For millions of people advocating the fence, it is an act of racism. Sheer xenophobia. I think you missed the point of some of these anti-wall posts.

 If you can argue the actual effect on "protecting the boarder" the fence would have, then you're admitting by proxy that the idea is being pushed without regard(for possible facts)..by far-right Xenophobes who act hard...At least in part.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 29, 2008)

Hmmmm

crossing the border illegally is a CRIME. Ergo, every illegal alien is a criminal. In what other crimes do we "not focus on the criminal, but rather take away the motivation to commit the crime"?

interesting.

At any rate, and back on topic, I dont believe either party's platform shows any deliberate racist ideaology.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 29, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Racist? Probably in some peoples minds. I think the percentage of people who advocate for said wall are in fact closet racists is higher than we are led to believe. I truly believe that a lot of this "protect our borders fr0m t3h terr0ism" is clearly ********. "Terrorists" Can come in from the northern border or the coasts too. For millions of people advocating the fence, it is an act of racism. Sheer xenophobia. I think you missed the point of some of these anti-wall posts.
> 
> If you can argue the actual effect on "protecting the boarder" the fence would have, then you're admitting by proxy that the idea is being pushed without regard(for possible facts)..by far-right Xenophobes who act hard...At least in part.


 

Ok.  You believe.  But from where do you get your facts to support your supposition?  That is the point of my originaly question.  What policies or actions has the Republican party enacted to show that they are racist?

And dont mis-understand, the Federal government is doing things along the coast and the northern border to prevent terrorism as well.  But, I believe, because there is no race dimension to the issue, you will only hear things about it if we actually catch people, which there have been.

And I admit no such thing as you suggest, that because you can debate whether the wall would be effective or not, that the far-right must be full of xenophobes.  Any technique that has never been tried before (or even some of those that have) are legitimate issues to debate.  It may or may not work, but we will never know unless we try.  

To try to suggest that just because I believe its effectiveness can be debated means that I am saying that those that advocate its existence are racist is preposterous.


----------



## Josh (May 3, 2008)

Yes. I believe..That implies it's my opinion. I can offer no facts. It's strictly my opinion based on the people I've talked to and heard on right wing talk radio stations. I think, on the other hand to deny a xenophobic element to the border issue..whatsoever is ignorant.


----------



## Big Don (May 3, 2008)

As far as the border fence is concerned: *Criminal* is *NOT* a race!


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 5, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Yes. I believe..That implies it's my opinion. I can offer no facts. It's strictly my opinion based on the people I've talked to and heard on right wing talk radio stations. I think, on the other hand to deny a xenophobic element to the border issue..whatsoever is ignorant.


 

You are absolutely right.  Just as I can believe that the anti-school voucher movement on the left is an attempt to keep those minorities in inner-city, poor (both in money and academic achievement) is a way to keep them uneducated.

Here is the difference though.  I can show how doing nothing merely then throwing additional cash at a problem is still continuint to allow failing schools to continue to fail.  Can you show some sort of correlation regarding racism and the border fence?

I won't deny that there are some racist who agree with the border fence.  However, the point of the thread is to show how one particular party is more or less racist then the other.  The question I asked as it relates to this discussion was what concrete facts can one give to show a particular leaning towards racism in the Republican party.  So far, IMO, none has been shown.


----------



## Josh (May 5, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You are absolutely right.  Just as I can believe that the anti-school voucher movement on the left is an attempt to keep those minorities in inner-city, poor (both in money and academic achievement) is a way to keep them uneducated.
> 
> Here is the difference though.  I can show how doing nothing merely then throwing additional cash at a problem is still continuint to allow failing schools to continue to fail.  Can you show some sort of correlation regarding racism and the border fence?
> 
> I won't deny that there are some racist who agree with the border fence.  However, the point of the thread is to show how one particular party is more or less racist then the other.  The question I asked as it relates to this discussion was what concrete facts can one give to show a particular leaning towards racism in the Republican party.  So far, IMO, none has been shown.



http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc268.html

"
Consider these quotes and facts:
  When being interviewed by a Bozeman Chronicle editor, Senator Conrad Burns (Rep - Montana) related a tale about when an old rancher asked Burns how he could live in Washington with so many African-Americans. Burn's reply to that rancher, according to his own story? It's a "hell of a challenge", he replied. In a later incident, while speaking to the Montana Equipment Dealers Association, he decried the dependence of America on Mideast oil. Referring to the Arabs as "ragheads", he later apologized by stating that he got too "emotionally involved" in the issue. Perhaps, as is the case with most folks, it's when you're too "emotionally involved" that your true biases emerge. *(1)*


  Another Republican, this time the Mayor of Trenton, North Carolina, offered this bit of wisdom on the work ethic of blacks, "They're not leaders. A black man would rather work for a white man". Ah, yes! That would explain why the slaves fought on the side on the Confederacy and why they demanded not to be freed! They were afraid of being forced to go against their nature and become leaders. Gosh, I would have never known that. Thanks, Mayor. That clears up so much.*(2)"*






To be fair these comments don't indicate a "Republican Racism" so much as a personal racism.





*ALSO*


_*Race*_. Since 1964, the GOP has been weakly represented among African Americans, winning under 15% of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2004).......<<< 

Under 15%? really? Just something to consider.


I don't think the party has a stated racist agenda. That being said
I think it just appears that way because of their programs which appear to (which may or may not ACTUALLY be) keep the inner city (in some cases African Americans) down. I think a lot of it may be in their POLICY and not their actual agenda. They've seen the effects of Reganomics and thus.....*
perception becomes reality.*


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 5, 2008)

Joshua said:


> http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc268.html
> 
> "
> Consider these quotes and facts:
> ...


 
I am glad you said this part, because I was going to blast a few Democrat candidates racist comments.  Based on this statement, I don't feel that's necessary.



> *ALSO*
> 
> 
> _*Race*_. Since 1964, the GOP has been weakly represented among African Americans, winning under 15% of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2004).......<<<
> ...


 

Now see, this is the crux of what I was referring to.  What about the Republican party policies caused, what I believe to be the perception, that the party was racist.  It is as though one day, everyone woke up and said, "hey, despite the past 150 years, I think the Republicans are the party of racists."  

You use Reganomics to show your point, but the effects of that happened long after Black shift to the Democratic party.  What caused this shift in the first place is what I really want to know.

But then one must ask why these policies seem racist.  One could look at a singular issue, such as Reganomics, but do you think people really pick one thing and form an opinion that they must be racist, especially when no racial motivation was espoused?

And just as an aside, African-Americans are people who were born in Africa.  Slave decendants who were born and raised in American are Black Americans.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 6, 2008)

To me this is a simple issue. Neither party is OVERTLY racist.

BUT

Lets take two statements:

"You can cant do it alone, you need help"

or

"You dont need any help, effort produces results"


Now imagine they are said to a black person. Which is more racist?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 6, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> To me this is a simple issue. Neither party is OVERTLY racist.
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


 
Although I understand what you are saying, I think a better example in this discussion would be:

You cant do it without governmental help because everyone is against you because of *put reason here*.  

or

You can do anything you want to as long as you work hard and use every resource at your disposal.


----------

