Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The majority of black Americans vote Democrat because the other party is not supportive of civil rights and/or federal minority programs. It's the same for gays/lesbians...the Democrats are the lesser of two evils in their case.
I don't think it's fair to criticize people for their political affiliation...but it's very hard to understand someone being part of a group that doesn't really support and defend them...oh well, to each his own.
The majority of black Americans vote Democrat because the other party is not supportive of civil rights and/or federal minority programs.
Now Deacon...talk about stereotyping and prejudice? So anyone who votes Republican doesn't support civil rights? Come on. Your posts indicate that you're better than that, and I'm truly surprised to see such a comment from you.
Sure, there are conservatives, myself included, who don't believe blindly throwing money at problems is always the answer. That doesn't mean I don't believe in civil rights.
What exactly is a "federal minority program" anyway? Remember the famous quote: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; you have fed him for a lifetime.” Our system today gives people fish and doesn't teach them to fish, and that's what many conservatives disagree with and oppose. Civil rights is about treating people without prejudice and without regard to race, religion, or other inherent physical or ethnic characteristic. It's not about handing out candy to people or soaking others to redistribute income to those without it.
Now Deacon...talk about stereotyping and prejudice? So anyone who votes Republican doesn't support civil rights? Come on. Your posts indicate that you're better than that, and I'm truly surprised to see such a comment from you.
Sure, there are conservatives, myself included, who don't believe blindly throwing money at problems is always the answer. That doesn't mean I don't believe in civil rights.
What exactly is a "federal minority program" anyway? Remember the famous quote: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; you have fed him for a lifetime.” Our system today gives people fish and doesn't teach them to fish, and that's what many conservatives disagree with and oppose. Civil rights is about treating people without prejudice and without regard to race, religion, or other inherent physical or ethnic characteristic. It's not about handing out candy to people or soaking others to redistribute income to those without it.
Have to agree Neil.
My opinion as it has always been, when it comes to the "Party of Slavery" (Democrat) there has been one major change. They have dropped the mantra of racism. Though they use color and other social emotional items to drive emotion they now in the modern area just look beyond color, why? They have finally figured out it is easier to enslave the entire general public instead of those of color.
Since inception, through the Civil War, to Roosevelt, and LBJ. The mantra of social / economic control over the lives of the public continue. By dropping race and including the whole populace under their twisted logic they can now place their agenda in hyperdrive.
May God, Allah, Budda, or the Fish with Legs, whatever your belief save us all.
The majority of black Americans vote Democrat because the other party is not supportive of civil rights and/or federal minority programs. It's the same for gays/lesbians...the Democrats are the lesser of two evils in their case.
I agree. The best friend of the civil rights movement was a strong federal government and activist courts.
The South has always been conservative even when it was dominated by Democrats politically. Some may not agree but I personally believe that the conservative anti-federal government ideology of the South arose from the issues of slavery and civil rights. Its no coincidence that the biggest "states rights" movements in Southern history happened when the abolitionist and civil rights movements were gaining traction politically. And the Republicans intentionally courted segregationist (and knowingly conceded the black vote) with their Southern strategy and states' rights politics. And because of this..blacks in America will continue to support the liberal party in general for the foreseeable future (whichever party that is...I think there is an misconception that blacks blindly vote Democratic.)
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N***er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "n***er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er" - Lee Atwater
I agree. The best friend of the civil rights movement was a strong federal government and activist courts.
The South has always been conservative even when it was dominated by Democrats politically. Some may not agree but I personally believe that the conservative anti-federal government ideology of the South arose from the issues of slavery and civil rights. Its no coincidence that the biggest "states rights" movements in Southern history happened when the abolitionist and civil rights movements were gaining traction politically. And the Republicans intentionally courted segregationist (and knowingly conceded the black vote) with their Southern strategy and states' rights politics. And because of this..blacks in America will continue to support the liberal party in general for the foreseeable future (whichever party that is...I think there is an misconception that blacks blindly vote Democratic.)
"You start out in 1954 by saying, "N***er, n***er, n***er." By 1968 you can't say "n***er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N***er, n***er" - Lee Atwater
Thread resurrected again!! I would have to agree with this statement. The vote is so racially polarized in the deep south primarily because of this. In the past 40 years Democrats have done more to court the black vote down here and Republicans have done more to court the white vote. LBJ lost southern whites in 1964 but he won southern blacks. This pattern continued with Nixon's southern strategy, Reagan touting "states rights" and demonizing "welfare queens", Clinton being seen as the first black President, and the real first black President (Obama) running as a Democrat.
Thread resurrected again!! I would have to agree with this statement. The vote is so racially polarized in the deep south primarily because of this. In the past 40 years Democrats have done more to court the black vote down here and Republicans have done more to court the white vote. LBJ lost southern whites in 1964 but he won southern blacks. This pattern continued with Nixon's southern strategy, Reagan touting "states rights" and demonizing "welfare queens", Clinton being seen as the first black President, and the real first black President (Obama) running as a Democrat.
One good thing about being a Libertarian is I know that both parties are full of bunk. Both just one fraction away from the other being the same under a different name.
But, as I stated before no matter how you slice the pig the Democrat party was and currently is the party of slavery. From forced bondage to what is now defined as government dependence.
Courting votes is one thing, about as equal as a a teenage boy courting a young lady, telling her what she wants to hear to get her patronage (vote) all the while knowingly serving his self interest in the long run at her expense.
I have always been amazed by the Democrats ability to master demonization of any and all who do not fall for their failed logic or should I say emotional bondage.
When one looks at history and even to present day outside of government subsidy / bondage what does this party of slavery do for any person much less those of color.
It was Eisenhower who provided integration of our schools and military while the party of slavery held steadfast.
It was the GOP who held fillibusters to move forward with a civil rights passage under a Democrat controlled house and senate, with one racist who still resides in the Senate walls from my home state of WV known as Robert Byrd, who during his election in 1954 he vowed to stop integration efforts by Dwight Eisenhower, only to retire his Grand Cyclops KKK membership to run for office, but for some reason this scumbag who has kept half the state of WV under dependency is hailed as a hero, go figure.
It was Ronald Reagan and the GOP, not the party of slavery who through "fighting" their way through a Democrat house made Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday a national holiday.
The list could run even deeper if we moved back to the 19th Century, but during that time we knew the Democrats were the party of slavery, nothing hidden, nothing polished, like Johnson's 1866 riot act to strip slaves from owning land that was preached under Lincoln, an evil Whig / Republican.
One thing I will always give the party of slavery. They are masters of marketing, nothing holds a candle to this group and something tells me they never will. Heck, the National Socialist and Leninist only held power from 12 and 75 years, this group has been selling undercover witchcraft for almost 2 centuries.
In closing and as I stated in my first sentence. Today's GOP is nothing like the GOP of Reagan. As with the party of slavery, the true GOP died with Reagan in 1988. Today's GOP also preaches big government involvement, Sonny's Ga is a good example. But today it's Bush/Clinton the twin NeoCons or our last election of Obama McCain, the old and young of the same cloth. Today we all are becoming trained sheep which will give us a lost generation. Bush made you broke, Obama gave you false hope. As "everyones" liberties evaporate lets just hope there is enough room on the teeets of the government sow. As Tytler stated, from bondage we will go back to bondage. It's an evil cycle, but reality it seems to be more everyday
So much ridiculousness I do not have time to take on all of it but I will take up the craziest bit. The idea that it was Republicans who fought for MLK Day. That is hilarious. It was Jimmy Carter who first started pushing the idea at a Presidential level and Democrats who finally got it through. Reagan signed it because it passed congress with a super majority.
Republicans like Jesse Helms were vehemently against it offering up gems like this
Quote:
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), charging that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. espoused "action-oriented Marxism" and other "radical political" views, yesterday temporarily blocked Senate action on a House-passed bill to create a new national holiday in memory of the slain civil rights leader.
But what should I expect from someone who refers to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party".
I agree that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both put the interests of their corporate masters above all else and are far too conservative for me but facts are facts.
I refuse to take seriously any arguments that reference the Democratic party before 1964. Any sane person knows that the Democratic party is totally different now, just as the Republican party is totally different now. Many of those southern democrats became southern republicans once LBJ got behind civil rights and the dems nominated anti war crusader George McGovern.
Reagan is, for some odd reason, touted as the icon of the modern conservative movement. It can just as easily be said that he was a rich California socialite, who at one time was a democrat, who exploited white unrest after the civil rights movement, and made blue collar whites believe that he was "one of them." And the idea that he was beloved by all citizens is ridic as well: His approval rating was below 50% for most of his first term and even dropped to 35% in the midst of the early 80's recession. He rose to power during a time when a wave of social conservatism, based on a backlash of the 1960's ad 1970's, was sweeping the nation and the Democratic party was in disarray as southern democrats continually defected from their party.
Take a look at New England. The region has always been a general supporter of social liberalism and a strong federal government. That is why it was a Republican stronghold for such a long time. To this day, Vermont holds the record as voting for Repiblican candidates the most in presidential elections. In 2008, Barack Obama won well over 60% of the vote there.
Also, the move to make MLK day a holiday was done under a Republican administration, but many Repubs in fact voted against the bill, including one time maverick and current puppet of the tea partiers John McCain. Just a little FYI for ya.
I'm curious as to what your definition of freedom is. Are you talking about the freedom for the top 5% to control the vast majority of wealth in this country and hold the American people on puppet strings, or the freedom for everyone to be treated equally under the law and to be given basic human rights such as healthcare? You and I both want freedom, but I think this is where our opinions diverge.
a word to the wise: I'm a 20 year old idealistic, white college student so maybe you should just disregard everything I'm saying and hope that the harsh realities of life turn me to your way of thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
