Howard Dean Calls GOP the "WHITE party"

[elder999]

Yeah, the FACT that the KKK's most frequent victims were republicans interferes with your zeal to paint republicans as racists, so, that clearly cannot be relevant....

It isn't I who "zealously" portrays "republicans as racists"; it is you who quite zealously portrays democrats as racists, rather than simply accepting that there are idiots of that type in both parties, and judging them as individuals.

I mean, I'll agree with you-Howard Dean's a first class tool. And?

I'd be more than content to leave the David Dukes, John Aschcrofts and Trent Lotts out of this, if you hadn't brought it up in the first place.....again.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Why the big emphasis over political parties? Why dont we choose, in every election, the person that we believe is best suited for the position in which they are running?

In this debate amongst MT members, we see the same defensiveness in the issues on both sides. One person can use on tactic in describing the other side, but when it comes to that other side using the same tactic, its a foul play.

Parties are parties. The question is, what does each individual candidate stand for. What is you philosophy behind the way the country/state/county/city should be run.

I grew up Democratic. But, based on my own studying of political issues, human behavior, and history, I have come to a different conclusion. It is the unthinking person that is slavish to a party point of view. That is why I analyze the positions taken by candidates of either side and act accordingly.

That is not to say that party politics is not important at all. But, if every American voted their beliefs and not their party, then we would all be better off.

 

[DocWard]

Hello, new guy here, and I may be jumping into the middle of a fire storm by the looks of it. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the Republican Party that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Democrats attempted to filibuster it?

Oh, and G.W. Bush continues to have blacks, asians, hispanics and females on his cabinet, as he has from day one. Currently a black female is Secretary of State, rendering her fourth in the line of Presidential succession, behind the VP, the Speaker of the House (a white female, at this time) and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

While it is not politically correct to suggest that the Democratic party has bought the vote of minorities with handouts, the fact is that the policies of the Democratic party, regardless of their intention, have had the effect of creating a long term situation of dependency on government, and has been a factor, if not a key factor, in magnifying the disparity between minorities and whites in education, earning potential, and other socio-economic factors.

The disparity also exists between whites living in Appalachia and outside of Appalachia, for similar reasons, although the whites in Appalachia and the South in general can also trace the blame for their condition back as far as the colonial era and the fact that slave labor created a lack of employment for them, up through the post-Civil War Era, where (mostly) northern Republicans and corporations worsened their condition by taking control of virtually all of the economy, up through the present, where the Democrats have created the same dependency that minorities experience.

 

[Big Don]

For a party that values diversity, things look mighty white at the DNC

 

[elder999]

Hello, new guy here, and I may be jumping into the middle of a fire storm by the looks of it. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the Republican Party that pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the Democrats attempted to filibuster it?

Hi “new guy.”

You’re not exactly wrong, and you’re not quite right.

In fact, you’re mostly wrong

The bill that became the Civil Rights Act was introduced into congress by then President John F. Kennedy. It was managed in the Senate by Emmanuel Celler, a democrat from New York, and in the House by Hubert Humphrey, a democrat from Minnesota.After Kennedy’s assassination, it was championed by LBJ, though it was mostly opposed by democrats from the south, not surprisingly, and filibustered by none other then Senator Byrd, something he has since publicly and repeatedly said he regrets.

A look at the voting record shows that it was passed by a largely democratic majority in both houses, with dissenting votes coming from southern states, regardless of party affiliation, as follows:

By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

In fact, as you can see, the majority of dissenting “northerners” were republicans.

 

[elder999]

For a party that values diversity, things look mighty white at the DNC

But,but.....aren't you against simply giving a position to someone because they're in the minority? In fact, wouldn't you say that going out and finding someone like Jesse jackson, Jr. to sit on the committee would be a form of racism?

Isn't the presence of a woman on there enough for diversity?

In fact, these folks seem to have about the same degree of diversity.....

Less, even: Lottie Shackleford, vice chairman of the DNC, is a black woman.

Linda Chavez-Thompson, is a Mexican-American woman.

Mike Honda is a Japanese American who spent part of his childhood in an internment camp during WWII.

Nope, not much diversity there...

 

[elder999]

Yeah, the FACT that the KKK's most frequent victims were republicans interferes with your zeal to paint republicans as racists, so, that clearly cannot be relevant.

As I said, there's no zeal on my part in that regard. I have only one aim in replying to your threads.

The FACT that the democratic party has a shamefully racist history is well shameful and therefore cannot be relevant.

I suppose that all the southern states, as well as some midwestern ones should be equally ashamed. In fact, my home state of New York should be ashamed for not allowing blacks, Jews and Catholics to vote for its first 20 years.

The FACT that the Republican party was SPECIFICALLY founded to end slavery, not relevant.

I'll concede that that was one among many reasons at the Republican party's inception. It's as relevant as the Episcopal Church's SPECIFICALLY being founded by Henry VIII so he could get a divorce and remarry, or as Dartmouth College's SPECIFICALLY being founded as an Indian School-strike that; Native Americans still get full scholarships to Darmouth if they're accepted.

]David Duke holds no public office, but, he gets thrown in to these discussions. a tidbit :
Gee, I guess that means me and TF were right, doesn't it?
BTW, the ONLY time Duke won, he won as a Democrat...

ER....no.He switched from the Democratic to the Repulican party in 1988. In 1989 Duke ran against a fellow Republican for Metairie's seat in the Louisiana State Legislature, and won-as a republican, in spite of calls of support for his opponent from various Republican quarters.In subsequent elections, much could be made of the perccentages he garnered, especially among white voters, but I'll avoid that because, well, he lost, and how much of anyone voted for him-with the exception that they were voting Republican isn't.......relevant.

 

[elder999]

IElder, I admire your efforts, but you will never convince me the democratic party isnt racist to the core.

It isn't my intention to convince you-or Big Don- of anything, TF. I have only one goal in those efforts you profess to admire.....

 

[DocWard]

Hi “new guy.”

You’re not exactly wrong, and you’re not quite right.

In fact, you’re mostly wrong

The bill that became the Civil Rights Act was introduced into congress by then President John F. Kennedy. It was managed in the Senate by Emmanuel Celler, a democrat from New York, and in the House by Hubert Humphrey, a democrat from Minnesota.After Kennedy’s assassination, it was championed by LBJ, though it was mostly opposed by democrats from the south, not surprisingly, and filibustered by none other then Senator Byrd, something he has since publicly and repeatedly said he regrets.

A look at the voting record shows that it was passed by a largely democratic majority in both houses, with dissenting votes coming from southern states, regardless of party affiliation, as follows:



In fact, as you can see, the majority of dissenting “northerners” were republicans.

Nope, I think I am about where I thought I was. Even though numerically, you are correct, the majority of dissenting northerners were Republicans, what is also clear is that the vast majority of northern Republicans voted for the bill. Most would consider 85% (27 for, 5 against) to be quite a large number. Evidently you don't. Is it because it doesn't play well within your paradigm?

Further, the history is pretty clear that the Democrats, particularly Humphrey and LBJ, knew they needed Republican support to pass the bill into law, given the southern Democrats' leanings on the issue. Both knew it would take a substantial number of Republicans to gain cloture, once the promised filibuster took place. Sen. Everett Dirksen (R), of Illinois, made it happen.

There are two very interesting views of the events. One, that Humphrey hoodwinked Dirksen, thereby getting what he wanted. The other is that the Republicans knew that the effect of passage would be to break the hold the Democrats had on the south. In fact, LBJ is said to have uttered something to the effect of "we have given the South to the Republicans" upon signing the bill into law.

That isn't to say you are incorrect regarding the nature of the South and the role the southern Democrats have played. From Dixiecrats to Reagan Democrats, the socially conservative southern Democrats have been helpful to the Republican party platform for their own reasons, whether racially motivated or not.

However, I have to say that giving Byrd a pass because he has publically apologized for his past and his voting record, and excoriating the Republican party for specific instances of distasteful conduct seems at least a little hypocritical.

What seems clear to me today is that both parties are willing to include persons of any race, gender or ethnic background, if they are intelligent and their views and opinions work within the framework of the party. The real question is which party, if either, has the best plan for future American success.

As a libertarian (small L, I'm not a party member, it is my political philosophy), my preference is to have smaller government, greater self-reliance, and more ability to maintain what I earn, instead of having it doled to federal pork barrel spending and often wasteful social programs. One of the major problems, as I see it, is the fact that half of the nation pays no income tax to speak of, and we have the term "federal tax dollars" ingrained upon us. They aren't federal tax dollars, they are our tax dollars. Calling them anything else causes us to loose sight of responsibility for their careful use.

 

[elder999]

However, I have to say that giving Byrd a pass because he has publically apologized for his past and his voting record, and excoriating the Republican party for specific instances of distasteful conduct seems at least a little hypocritical.

Only as hypocritical as insisting that the Democratic party is the "party of racism" because of that racist history.Take a look at Big Don's post history-it's illuminating.

What seems clear to me today is that both parties are willing to include persons of any race, gender or ethnic background, if they are intelligent and their views and opinions work within the framework of the party. The real question is which party, if either, has the best plan for future American success.

Wel.....duh-and well said.
Good post, BTW.

 

[DocWard]

Only as hypocritical as insisting that the Democratic party is the "party of racism" because of that racist history.Take a look at Big Don's post history-it's illuminating.

Fair enough. I must admit I was focusing on your arguments, which I find to be cogent, even if I don't necessarily agree with them fully. I was chalking up much of what was said about the Democrats being the "party of racism" as hyperbole. As I mentioned earlier, I think the effect of their actions has been unfortunate, but I wouldn't assert that they were done out of racial motivation. I sometimes wonder if it isn't done as a way to expand power, both personal and governmental. But then, I look for that same thing from the Republicans as well.

Wel.....duh-and well said.
Good post, BTW.

Thanks, and you as well. I do enjoy a good political discussion once in awhile, although I must admit that I am considering founding PA, Politics Anonymous, for those of us who become addicted to politics, and arguing the same, particularly over the internet, where the addiction can consume far too much of our time. We can just say "Friends of Roger W."

 

[elder999]

It isn't my intention to convince you-or Big Don- of anything, TF. I have only one goal in those efforts you profess to admire.....

There seems to be some misunderstanding, so I'll just put this here for all to see.....

My only intention in replying to your threads-or anyone's- is to help you. Help you in demonstrating your intelligence and knowledge. I mean that in the most sincere and civil way, btw.

Of course, it's not as though anyone needs my help. Why, the punctuation, spelling and overwhelming content of your posts are demonstration enough to all of your intellectual capabilities, but, I have to say, I can't help but lend what meager assistance I can to your endeavors.

In fact-and again, I say this with the utmost sincerity and civility,and only with the best intentions in mind-it's my sincere hope that I can continue to assist you until the day that you no longer feel the need to enlighten us all with your obvious intelligence, wit and erudition. In the meantime, you can expect me to fulfill what I feel to be my obligation to aid you, whenever I have time and the need arises, of course.....

 

[elder999]

sorry, i know the dems have bought the black vote in america with 40 years of hand outs, but it doesnt change the basic way they think and treat people. Not the people per se, but the basis of the party thought

Some here might not understand quite you meant, here, TF, though it seems pretty clear to me.

allow me to help.

What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white
people.

24.7% of African Americans live below the poverty line, so the other 75.3% of us must be voting for welfare too.....

Oh, and most welfare recipients, black, white or otherwise, are single mothers........and most of them don't vote.....

Is that what you meant? Glad I could help.

 

[DocWard]

There seems to be some misunderstanding, so I'll just put this here for all to see.....

My only intention in replying to your threads-or anyone's- is to help you. Help you in demonstrating your intelligence and knowledge. I mean that in the most sincere and civil way, btw... etc...

I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. Just curious.

What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white
people.

24.7% of African Americans live below the poverty line, so the other 75.3% of us must be voting for welfare too.....

Oh, and most welfare recipients, black, white or otherwise, are single mothers........and most of them don't vote.....

I believe it was Mark Twain who said that there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." In regard to social programs, one, or at least I, would expect whites to receive the majority of the expenditures. Considering whites are, for the moment, still the majority race in the U.S. So what percentage of whites receive assistance, as compared to other races?

In regard to the poverty line, I'm not sure what relevance that has, although I am sure it has some. What percentage of blacks are in the bottom fifty percent of wage earners? That percentage would have very little in the way of tax burden, since the top fifty percent of wage earners pay something around 96% of taxes taken in by the federal government. The relevance of that? One who is not having money taken out of his pocket may have no qualms about voting largesse out of the pocket of another, especially if it is beneficial to he or someone he considers in his social or ethnic group. And yes, the exact same can be said for poor whites.

 

[elder999]

I'm not sure if that was directed to me or not. Just curious.

Wasn't "directed" at anyone-that would be wrong.

Or, if you prefer, it was directed at everyone.

Well, it certainly wasn't directed at you, anyway.:lol:

IIn regard to the poverty line, I'm not sure what relevance that has, although I am sure it has some. What percentage of blacks are in the bottom fifty percent of wage earners? That percentage would have very little in the way of tax burden, since the top fifty percent of wage earners pay something around 96% of taxes taken in by the federal government. The relevance of that? One who is not having money taken out of his pocket may have no qualms about voting largesse out of the pocket of another, especially if it is beneficial to he or someone he considers in his social or ethnic group. And yes, the exact same can be said for poor whites.

According the to 2000 U.S. census, there were 34.5 million people in the U.S. who identified themselves as "african american."

The median income for that group was $29,470-not bad for a group with a median age of 29.5 yrs.

The adjusted income per capita was a little over $14,900- above the poverty line.

Of that 34.5 million population, about 8.1 million were identified as "poor," or living below the poverty line.

In any case, your logic is somewhat flawed-if someone earns "wages" over $150,000 per year, their income taxes, depending upon the skill of their accountant and other factors, should be safely around $40,000/yr.-significantly more if they lack the benefit of skilled fiduciary management, a 401K and other factors, though the odds of this are slight-in fact, it's likely that if they earn wages such as these, they have other sources of income that are afforded even more protection, and their annual income is in excess of their wages. It's also equally likely that they pay less than $40,000/yr. with solid-and legal-fiduciary management.

In any case, someone who makes that much money is far less likely to "miss" their $40,000/yr. than the someone who makes $29,000 per year is going to miss their five or six thousand per year, especially given the fact that they aren't likely to be paying that much anyway.Consequently, one tends to find people in this higher income bracket split across party lines when it comes to increasing taxes-especially when they know they can find means to retain their wealth and reduce their tax payment anyway, through avenues that those who make less cannot afford. My wife and I, for instance, are for more likely to vote for social programs (no surprise) than may inlaws, who have always voted for candidates who promised "tax cuts."

Asidse from which, only 57% of African Americans were recorded as voting in the 1996 presidential election-again, according to the 2000 census. While this percentage wasn't broken down by income, it's a safe bet that most of those voting were either relatively young and without income, or well above the poverty line-and equally likely that they would be of an income that stands to lose more-"more" being relative to their lower income-than those who earn so much more,and pay more as well.

So how, exactly, were they voting for their handout?

That question, btw, was not really directed at you, KarateEsq.-though you-or anyone-should feel free to answer.

In that respect, it's directed at everyone. :wink:

Census bureau facts for African Americans.

 

[Twin Fist]

What I think is being said here is that the democrats have bought black votes with "social programs, like welfare..........55% of all welfare expenditures go to white
people.

yes, and whites are over 70% of the overall population.

so, by YOUR OWN NUMBERS, non whites collect welfare at a higher rate than whites, relative to overall population.

welfare
food stamps
AA

nope, no buying the black vote there.................

you aint fooling anyone elder. You can play nice all you want, i am onto your game. Back on the ignore list you go. I will not give you the satisfaction of goading me into an infraction

 

[elder999]

yes, and whites are over 70% of the overall population.

That's including "white hispanics," of course-it's somewhat less than 70% if one subtracts them from the equation.....

welfare
food stamps
AA

nope, no buying the black vote there.................

you aint fooling anyone elder. You can play nice all you want, i am onto your game. Back on the ignore list you go. I will not give you the satisfaction of goading me into an infraction

Buying what black vote, exactly? I mean, you can ignore me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that-at best-they'd be "buying" something less than 34.5 million votes-and most of those are unlikely, as I demonstrated earlier, to be any more supportive or welfare and food stamps than you are, just as those who receive welfare are less likely to vote.

I'm not trying to "goad you into an infraction";that would be wrong. I'm trying to help.

What's "AA?"

 

[elder999]

you aint fooling anyone elder. You can play nice all you want, i am onto your game. Back on the ignore list you go. I will not give you the satisfaction of goading me into an infraction

And why is it that when your ideas require elaboration, or appear to be weak, you fail to offer any, and instead ignore me for fear of an infraction?

There are plenty of users on this forum-over 10,000-some of them would probably agree with you, if you'd just say something, instead of talking around it.

Heck, I might even agree with you, at least in part.....I'm certainly not goading....or trolling...I'm trying to help you.

(you might note how the OP has been conspicuously absent, though, as far as that goes. )

 

[MJS]

THREAD CLOSED PENDING REVIEW

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin