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.
Some people need to take a look at who all the remaining dixiecrats endorse. Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott etc. All of MLK's remaining blood endorse dems. Ike and Lincoln were liberals by today's standards. Also Ike's remaining blood votes dem.
Why is the GOP a major political party in this country? They have been largely ineffective as problem-solvers. They continue to be supported by the same segment of this society that prefers slavery and Jim Crow. They are divisive, emphasizing the DIFFERENCES among us and not the similarities. They are pompous enough to feel that men can tell women what to do with their bodies (abortion), that racism no longer exists to the detriment of black people ("reverse discrimination"), that welfare recipients are mainly lazy blacks looking for a handout, that illegal immigrants need to be kicked out even as they hire them on the cheap and pay them under the table. They are perpetual war mongerers, assuming that other sovereign nations want to be just like us without taking the time to know and understand other cultures or respect their ideology.
Their party is largely now dominated by white people. Rarely does one see a black person supporting their agenda. In the last election, I was at a polling station, and a white guy representing the Republican party was handing out leaflets of how Republicans should vote. He was approached by an interracial couple, black man and white woman. True to form, this very short-sighted individual tried to give the leaflet to the white woman, ignoring the black man (assuming he wasn't a Republican). I was delighted to see the woman take the leaflet and tear it in half and throw it in his face.
So the question remains: why does the GOP exist except to continue to perpetuate racism and bigotry even as the progression of the nation as an international community continues?
Still another thread started by someone who creates an evil, despicable, bigoted, racist, sexist straw man, and slaps a sign on it that reads "Republican", and then goes on a rant bashing their newly created straw man.
Sadly, this is the way that the racial history of this country is portrayed in our popular culture and our abysmal educational system. The ruling intellectual norm among leftists is that Republicans before the second half of the twentieth century were really Democrats, and that Pro-Slavery Democrats just up and decided to become Republicans. The sad truth is that Democrats have always been, and continue to be, dead wrong on issues of race.
Consider this:
The Antebellum south was ruled by a social system that we call "Paternalism". Paternalism was the idea that plots of land - plantations and family farms - were to be governed by an educated and morally upright white man who would "take care" of his subjects - namely his slaves. Slaves, being the unintelligent brutes they were, were not capable of making their own decisions or furthering their financial or educational prospects. Instead, the best life they could hope to have would be under the benevolent protection of the patriarch. In short, blacks needed to be taken care of because they couldn't take care of themselves.
Sound familiar?
Naturally, this argument, which claimed the inherent inferiority of blacks in our country, was used to justify the institution of slavery. By this logic, if the slaves were freed, they would simply migrate to the north, where they would be exploited by the dog-eat-dog world of the booming market economy and the emerging American capitalist system. They had to be insulated from this.
Sound familiar?
American conservatism, when it stays true to its core values, is an individual-oriented system. Racism, and all forms of racial discrimination, are collective in nature. You simply cannot seek to degrade a group of people if you don't believe in groups over individuals. Ayn Rand once wrote that racism is the most basic, primitive form of collectivism. Although i'm not an objectivist, I have to agree.
Left-Wingers seem to have a self-righteous streak about this whole issue. But given our history and the very nature of their ideology, I don't understand why this is so. They claim to value the separation of church and state and dislike those evil fundamentalists who try to ram religion down their throats. Yet they claim as one of their own a man who was legendary for mixing Biblical and Constitutional language in his rhetoric. They often dodge this contradiction by claiming Dr. King as a liberal because of his support for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but this was simply because he believed in comprehensive civil rights legislation at the federal level, whereas Sen. Goldwater wanted to use a more libertarian approach. Goldwater had supported voting rights legislation in 1957, when the likes of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did not.
Dr. King and President Johnson proceeded to have a major falling-out over Vietnam, after which Johnson was known to refer to him affectionately as "that n***** preacher". Summarily, King's endorsement of Johnson amounted to support for Civil Rights, not an alliance with the Democratic Party, as Democrats so often claim. Need I remind the condescending liberals of this forum that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 met more opposition among Democrats than it did among Republicans? Google Senator Everitt Dirksen.
History is not on the liberal side, no matter how much Harry Reid wants to say so. The old system of paternalism never went away. It has manifested itself among American liberals throughout our history, from Stephen Douglas to Woodrow Wilson to modern liberal politicians who want to "take care" of their black fellow Americans by depriving them of their human dignity and individuality.
If Democrats want to throw race in the GOP's faces, the least they could do is kick the white supremacist named Robert Byrd out of his senate seat, but i'm not expecting to see that happen.
If Democrats want to throw race in the GOP's faces, the least they could do is kick the white supremacist named Robert Byrd out of his senate seat, but i'm not expecting to see that happen.
Such an old, tired line. Byrd hasn't been involved with white supremacy groups for decades. He has little or nothing to do with the argument being made about today's GOP.
Such an old, tired line. Byrd hasn't been involved with white supremacy groups for decades. He has little or nothing to do with the argument being made about today's GOP.
We will keep bringing up Sen. Byrd as Democrats keeping claiming moral superiority on matters of race.
Sadly, this is the way that the racial history of this country is portrayed in our popular culture and our abysmal educational system. The ruling intellectual norm among leftists is that Republicans before the second half of the twentieth century were really Democrats, and that Pro-Slavery Democrats just up and decided to become Republicans. The sad truth is that Democrats have always been, and continue to be, dead wrong on issues of race.
Consider this:
The Antebellum south was ruled by a social system that we call "Paternalism". Paternalism was the idea that plots of land - plantations and family farms - were to be governed by an educated and morally upright white man who would "take care" of his subjects - namely his slaves. Slaves, being the unintelligent brutes they were, were not capable of making their own decisions or furthering their financial or educational prospects. Instead, the best life they could hope to have would be under the benevolent protection of the patriarch. In short, blacks needed to be taken care of because they couldn't take care of themselves.
Sound familiar?
Naturally, this argument, which claimed the inherent inferiority of blacks in our country, was used to justify the institution of slavery. By this logic, if the slaves were freed, they would simply migrate to the north, where they would be exploited by the dog-eat-dog world of the booming market economy and the emerging American capitalist system. They had to be insulated from this.
Sound familiar?
American conservatism, when it stays true to its core values, is an individual-oriented system. Racism, and all forms of racial discrimination, are collective in nature.You simply cannot seek to degrade a group of people if you don't believe in groups over individuals. Ayn Rand once wrote that racism is the most basic, primitive form of collectivism. Although i'm not an objectivist, I have to agree.
Left-Wingers seem to have a self-righteous streak about this whole issue. But given our history and the very nature of their ideology, I don't understand why this is so. They claim to value the separation of church and state and dislike those evil fundamentalists who try to ram religion down their throats. Yet they claim as one of their own a man who was legendary for mixing Biblical and Constitutional language in his rhetoric. They often dodge this contradiction by claiming Dr. King as a liberal because of his support for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but this was simply because he believed in comprehensive civil rights legislation at the federal level, whereas Sen. Goldwater wanted to use a more libertarian approach. Goldwater had supported voting rights legislation in 1957, when the likes of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson did not.
Dr. King and President Johnson proceeded to have a major falling-out over Vietnam, after which Johnson was known to refer to him affectionately as "that n***** preacher". Summarily, King's endorsement of Johnson amounted to support for Civil Rights, not an alliance with the Democratic Party, as Democrats so often claim. Need I remind the condescending liberals of this forum that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 met more opposition among Democrats than it did among Republicans? Google Senator Everitt Dirksen.
History is not on the liberal side, no matter how much Harry Reid wants to say so. The old system of paternalism never went away. It has manifested itself among American liberals throughout our history, from Stephen Douglas to Woodrow Wilson to modern liberal politicians who want to "take care" of their black fellow Americans by depriving them of their human dignity and individuality.
If Democrats want to throw race in the GOP's faces, the least they could do is kick the white supremacist named Robert Byrd out of his senate seat, but i'm not expecting to see that happen.
Wow! Excellent analysis of liberal hypocrisy, and why liberals are completely wrong about which party actually practices racial discrimination. The part I bolded is KEY to understanding why that is.
Wow! Excellent analysis of liberal hypocrisy, and why liberals are completely wrong about which party actually practices racial discrimination. The part I bolded is KEY to understanding why that is.
Such an old, tired line. Byrd hasn't been involved with white supremacy groups for decades. He has little or nothing to do with the argument being made about today's GOP.
He has used the "n" word in recent times.
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.
