Buzz
Full Member
 
Karma: +30/-35
Posts: 157
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2007, 01:20:06 PM » |
|
My God man... can you read?
I said I don't have time to prove it.
I'll be back Sunday or Monday and provide you with evidence.
Then we will see who is the hack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2007, 02:07:49 PM » |
|
There are very good reasons that minorities tend to vote Democratic. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a historic decision by LBJ to right an embarrassing wrong at the expense of his party's political future. Republicans have taken advantage of that ever since. There is even a name for it, the "Southern Strategy." Here's an article about the Southern Strategy from Wikipedia, but by all means, do a Google search and read about it yourself. The Republicans made the expicit decision to play biggoted whites against blacks. The Republican party's subsequent decision to align their party with the religious right means that they have extended that bigotry to gays. It was an easy and natural extension for them. Their fanatical position on immigration--which is not nearly as big of an issue outside of conservative circles as it is within--is a natural outgrowth of their insular, exclusive vision and knee-jerk fear and dislike of "the other." This is reality. You can pretend it's not true, but it's a historical, documented fact. Following the 2004 re-election of President George W. Bush, which saw a low number of African Americans voting for Bush and other Republicans, Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush's campaign manager, delivered several speeches at meetings with African American business, community, and religious leaders in which he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. Said Mehlman, "By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."[13] However, many prominent Republican and conservative commentators denounced Mehlman for his apology, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity among them. --from Wikipedia, above It's one of the reasons that I find the assertion that there is no important differences between the two parties so absurd. It's not a statistical abberation that Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. They vote that way because they'd be crazy not to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381
|
 |
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2007, 02:40:02 PM » |
|
The religious right could EASILY include tons of African American voters.
Reguardless, I never claimed that the Republicans reach out. But your assertion that they are turning people against eachother is out of whack. And the general assertion that Republicans are racist is again bullocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 \\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\" \\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
 |
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2007, 03:08:10 PM » |
|
So you think the Democrats pander to the religious right? Gee, wanta buy a bridge?  OswaldTheOsprey First... I never said that they pander to the religious right. Your just putting words in my mouth. Second... I asked how they are ignoring them. You did make that comment in your post that got lost. Think maybe you could answer that? And third... Why do you think most Dems running for president have been making it a point to show their religiousness? It was for all Christians especially the right. Ignoring them? Will the Democrats answer questions in a debate from the Christian Coalition or Focus on the Family? Highly, highly doubtful at best. Are they Un-Christian? No and nor are Republicans racist for not appearing before Democrat-controlled black groups. The Democrats are not anti-religious and the GOP is not racist. Both are simply crooked, dirty, money grubbing swine controlled by international high finance and big business. Now, that is what gets lost in all of the hullabaloo about silly side issues. OswaldTheOsprey
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381
|
 |
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2007, 04:07:48 PM » |
|
Ignoring them? Will the Democrats answer questions in a debate from the Christian Coalition or Focus on the Family? Highly, highly doubtful at best. Are they Un-Christian? No and nor are Republicans racist for not appearing before Democrat-controlled black groups. The Democrats are not anti-religious and the GOP is not racist. Both are simply crooked, dirty, money grubbing swine controlled by international high finance and big business. Now, that is what gets lost in all of the hullabaloo about silly side issues.
OswaldTheOsprey Amen brother 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 \\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\" \\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2007, 05:26:45 PM » |
|
Ignoring them? Will the Democrats answer questions in a debate from the Christian Coalition or Focus on the Family? Highly, highly doubtful at best. Are they Un-Christian? No and nor are Republicans racist for not appearing before Democrat-controlled black groups. The Democrats are not anti-religious and the GOP is not racist. Both are simply crooked, dirty, money grubbing swine controlled by international high finance and big business. Now, that is what gets lost in all of the hullabaloo about silly side issues.
OswaldTheOsprey Amen brother  Indeed brother!  OswaldTheOsprey
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2007, 08:38:48 AM » |
|
What does uber-right winger Newt Gingrich have to say about the controversy? Only this: "For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who has not yet ruled out a White House run himself. "I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
 |
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2007, 08:45:07 AM » |
|
What does uber-right winger Newt Gingrich have to say about the controversy? Only this: "For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who has not yet ruled out a White House run himself. "I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletterSo we should listen to him? Who wishes to be lectured by someone who takes divorce papers to cancer wards? No thanks!  OswaldTheOsprey
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381
|
 |
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2007, 08:51:34 AM » |
|
Haha, more partisanship from JPN.
Jpn, it's interesting how you've made fun of Newt on IAP numerous times. Yet now that he says something that supports what you say, you have to post it. Sad sad sad.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 09:03:40 AM by Totino »
|
Logged
|
 \\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\" \\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
|
|
|
illhumanoddity
Full Member
 
Karma: +25/-8
Posts: 177
|
 |
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2007, 08:56:05 AM » |
|
What does uber-right winger Newt Gingrich have to say about the controversy? Only this: "For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error," said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), who has not yet ruled out a White House run himself. "I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletterIMO, it likely had more to do with the fact that Baltimore has a Democratic majority than a black majority. It's not too far off base for them to see Baltimore as a lost cause for them. None of them actually have a chance of bringing home a majority from the city. Not that it's right for them to ignore people from opposing viewpoints, I just see it as a much bigger factor than race. Newt is right though. It was an enormous error, because now people are discussing it. In politics image is everything, and they exhibited poor strategy here.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 09:02:23 AM by illhumanoddity »
|
Logged
|
I mean what did you think, my agenda was to freestyle, smile get paid to smoke weed, grab the mic and spoon feed?
-- Atmosphere, \\"Rhyme Slayers\\"
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2007, 07:26:08 PM » |
|
Reguardless, I never claimed that the Republicans reach out. But your assertion that they are turning people against eachother is out of whack. And the general assertion that Republicans are racist is again bullocks. You may be right. It's possible that you know more than Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush's campaign manager, whom I quoted above, directly contradicting your wishful assertion. But if you were right, I would then have trouble explaining the voting in last year’s Congressional elections. Republicans, as President Bush conceded, received a “thumping,” with almost every major demographic group turning against them. The one big exception was Southern whites, 62 percent of whom voted Republican in House races. Now, why was that, do you suppose? As Paul Krugman of the NY Times noted yesterday: Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.’s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.
Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California’s Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered. In 2000, Mr. Bush made a pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, famed at the time for its ban on interracial dating.
And all four leading Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination have turned down an invitation to a debate on minority issues scheduled to air on PBS this week. [...] One of the truly remarkable things about the contest for the Republican nomination is the way the contenders have snubbed not just blacks — who, given the G.O.P.’s modern history, probably won’t vote for a Republican in significant numbers no matter what — but Hispanics. In July, all the major contenders refused invitations to address the National Council of La Raza, which Mr. Bush addressed in 2000. Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, had to cancel a debate scheduled for Sept. 16 because only John McCain was willing to come.
If this sounds like a good way to ensure defeat in future elections, that’s because it is: Hispanics are a rapidly growing force in the electorate.
But to get the Republican nomination, a candidate must appeal to the base — and the base consists, in large part, of Southern whites who carry over to immigrants the same racial attitudes that brought them into the Republican fold to begin with. As a result, you have the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, pragmatists on immigration issues when they actually had to govern in diverse states, trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of Fortress America.
And both Hispanics and Asians, another growing force in the electorate, are getting the message. Last year they voted overwhelmingly Democratic, by 69 percent and 62 percent respectively.
In other words, it looks as if the Republican Party is about to start paying a price for its history of exploiting racial antagonism. If that happens, it will be deeply ironic. But it will also be poetic justice. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html?hpBy the way, in order to make a pursuasive rebuttal to this post, I would like to read 1) something other than a personal attack on Krugman, 2) a response to Ken Mehlman (with sources, please), 3) an alternative explanation for the prominent support among southern white men, 4) an alternative explanation for the fact that minorities support Democrats over Republicans, 5) a explanation of Nixon's Southern Strategy as being anything other than race-bating for political gain (with sources, please). Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,381
|
 |
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2007, 08:00:21 PM » |
|
Jpn, you're stretching now. Telling me that 62% of the support comes from white males in the south proves nothing.... I know you're going to deny this, but you're insinuating that people from the South are racist (go ahead and deny it). That's the underlying meaning of what you just posted.... One very good reason why Minorities support Democrats is that you have loons like Jesse Jackson and Al Shaprton, TWO VERY INFLUENTIAL Black leaders, telling them to vote Democrat. Republicans don't target minority voters, while Democrats do. How about that for another explination for you  . You tell me not to personally attack Krugman, but when you post the work of a blatantly biased individual, what do you think is going to happen? It'd be like me posting something that Sean Hannity or Bill wrote and saying "Don't personally attack them". But the end result would be you calling them biased because of their conservative beliefs. A November 13, 2003 article in The Economist [10] reads: "A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory." New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent attacked Krugman: "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Again, you attack Bush and his crew. You call them liars. You say they spew misinformation, etc. Yet when what they say supports what you say, you're quick to quote them. So either they lie, and the quote you just posted was a lie, or you can admit to me that Bush didn't misrepresent anything in the Iraq invasion. A pursuasive rebuttal? It'd first help if you posted something legit for me to make a rebuttal to  .
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 08:07:48 PM by Totino »
|
Logged
|
 \\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\" \\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\"
|
|
|
|
jpn of Seattle
|
 |
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2007, 08:46:08 PM » |
|
I simply asked:
By the way, in order to make a pursuasive rebuttal to this post, I would like to read 1) something other than a personal attack on Krugman, 2) a response to Ken Mehlman (with sources, please), 3) an alternative explanation for the prominent support among southern white men, 4) an alternative explanation for the fact that minorities support Democrats over Republicans, 5) a explanation of Nixon's Southern Strategy as being anything other than race-bating for political gain (with sources, please).
Your response: 1) a personal attack on Krugman 2) no response 3) no response 4) they vote that way because "loons like Jackson and Sharpton tell them to..." (Just out of curiosity, which "loons" "tell" you which way to vote? Pretty condescending thing to assert, isn't it?) 5) no response
You expect me to deny that I was insinuating that people from the South are racist. Of couse I am not going to deny that some people from the South are racist. That's a key ingredient of my very point. That's what the whole Southern Stragety, which you ignore, is all about. That's what Ken Mehlman's statement was all about.
***There are bigotted people in this country and the Republican Party has spent the last fourty years appealing to them.***
Can I say it any more explicitly? Can Ken Mehlman's statement make any sense without accepting that premise?
================ By the way, you seem to think it's a big deal that I quoted Pat Buchanan (or was it Newt Gingrich, I forget...) in another thread. I quoted that not because I think they are great founts of wisdom, but because I thought it was significant that a prominent spokeman for the conservative right was agreeing with a point I was making. I'm sure you'd do the same if you were ever to find a liberal agreeing with you. You know, like if you ever found a Democrat saying that Hussein had WMD.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 08:48:37 PM by jpn of Seattle »
|
Logged
|
What you got is everything-and I mean everything—run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. --John DiIulio, former White House official
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
   
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
 |
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2007, 12:03:00 AM » |
|
I simply asked:
By the way, in order to make a pursuasive rebuttal to this post, I would like to read 1) something other than a personal attack on Krugman, 2) a response to Ken Mehlman (with sources, please), 3) an alternative explanation for the prominent support among southern white men, 4) an alternative explanation for the fact that minorities support Democrats over Republicans, 5) a explanation of Nixon's Southern Strategy as being anything other than race-bating for political gain (with sources, please).
Your response: 1) a personal attack on Krugman 2) no response 3) no response 4) they vote that way because "loons like Jackson and Sharpton tell them to..." (Just out of curiosity, which "loons" "tell" you which way to vote? Pretty condescending thing to assert, isn't it?) 5) no response
You expect me to deny that I was insinuating that people from the South are racist. Of couse I am not going to deny that some people from the South are racist. That's a key ingredient of my very point. That's what the whole Southern Stragety, which you ignore, is all about. That's what Ken Mehlman's statement was all about.
***There are bigotted people in this country and the Republican Party has spent the last fourty years appealing to them.***
Can I say it any more explicitly? Can Ken Mehlman's statement make any sense without accepting that premise?
================ By the way, you seem to think it's a big deal that I quoted Pat Buchanan (or was it Newt Gingrich, I forget...) in another thread. I quoted that not because I think they are great founts of wisdom, but because I thought it was significant that a prominent spokeman for the conservative right was agreeing with a point I was making. I'm sure you'd do the same if you were ever to find a liberal agreeing with you. You know, like if you ever found a Democrat saying that Hussein had WMD.
Your response brings to mind the late great Dr. Samuel Francis' quip that the GOP was the stupid party and the Democrats were the evil party. "Loon" is too soft a word for Jackson and Sharpton as "thug" better fits supporters of the Jena 6 criminals. The Democrats' rabid embrace of Frankfurt School cultural marxism has only made the detestable GOP look good in comparison. Most people if offered a choice between a bumbling fool and a sinister schweinhund would opt for the former. OswaldTheOsprey
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
|