'Crats poised to rob Obama

C

Canceled.LTroll.29

Banned
No surprise, given their consistent history of racism.

Here's what they say on the Party website: "Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight."

Lies. All of it.

Here's the truth:

October 13, 1858:
During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) stated: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas was the Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee. He lost.

April 16, 1862:
Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans voted yes, 83% of northern Democrats voted no.

July 17, 1862:
Over unanimous northern Democrat opposition, the Republican Congress passed the Confiscation Act, stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”.

January 31, 1865:
The 13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by the U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, against intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865:
The 13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.

November 22, 1865:
Republicans denounced the Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.

February 5, 1866:
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduced legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat Andrew Johnson, to implement reparations relief by distributing land to former slaves.

April 9, 1866:
The Republican Congress overrode Democrat Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans.

May 10, 1866:
The U.S. House passed the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats voted no.

June 8, 1866:
The U.S. Senate passed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans voted yes and 100% of Democrats voted no.

January 8, 1867:
Republicans overrode Democrat Andrew Johnson’s veto of the law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867:
The Republican majority in Congress overrode Democrat Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting the voting rights of African-Americans.

March 30, 1868:
Foreshadowing the corruption of the racists Clintons by over a hundred years, Republicans began the impeachment trial of Democrat Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.

September 3, 1868:
25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority; they were later reinstated by the Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868:
Republicans denounced the racist Democratic Party’s national campaign slogan: “This is a white man’s country: let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868:
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) was assassinated by the Democrat terrorists who organized the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869:
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signed the first law granting women right to vote and to hold public office in the U.S.

February 3, 1870:
After passing the House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment was ratified, granting the vote to all Americans regardless of race.

May 31, 1870:
Republican President U.S. Grant signed the Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for Democrats caught violating any American’s civil rights.

June 22, 1870:
The Republican-controlled Congress created the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats.

February 28, 1871:
The Republican Congressinoal majority passed an Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters harrased and intimidated by racist 'Crats.

April 20, 1871:
The Republican majority in Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing the Democratic Party-founded terrorist group which oppresses African-Americans to this day.

October 10, 1871:
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands of Republicans.

October 18, 1871:
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deployed U.S. troops to combat the Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872:
Susan B. Anthony was arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight” .

January 17, 1874:
Armed Democrats seized the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate Lone Star government with illegal violence.

September 14, 1874:
Democrat white supremacists seized Louisiana's statehouse in an attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 people were killed.

March 1, 1875:
The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; the Act passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

January 10, 1878:
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduced the Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; the Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before the election of a Republican House and Senate guaranteed it's approval in 1919. Republicans foiled Democrat efforts to "keep women in the kitchen, where they belong".

February 8, 1894:
A newly-elected Democrat Congressional majority and Democrat President Grover Cleveland joined to repeal the Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote without fear of lynching by Democrats.

January 15, 1901:
Republican Booker T. Washington protested the Alabama Democrat Party’s illegal refusal to permit voting by African-Americans.

May 29, 1902:
Virginia Democrats implemented a new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.

February 12, 1909:
On the 100th anniversary of Republican Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-founded the NAACP.

May 21, 1919:
The Republican House passed a constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, in the Senate, 80% of Republicans voted yes.

August 18, 1920:
The Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, became part of our Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.

January 26, 1922:
A House passes bill was authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats blocked it with a filibuster.

June 2, 1924:
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signed a bill passed by a Republican-dominated Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

October 3, 1924:
Republicans denounced three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

June 12, 1929:
First Lady Lou Hoover invited the wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country.

August 17, 1937:
Republicans organized opposition to Klansman and Democrat Hugo Black, who had been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the notorious racist FDR; his Klan background was exposed by Republicans after his confirmation.

June 24, 1940:
The Republican Party platform called for integration of the armed forces; for the entirety of his three terms in office, FDR refused to order it.

August 8, 1945:
Republicans condemned Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan.

September 30, 1953:
California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential Earl W arre n, was nominated to be Chief Justice; he wrote the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

November 25, 1955:
The Republican Eisenhower administration banned racial segregation of interstate bus travel.

March 12, 1956:
Ninety-seven racist Democrats in Congress condemned the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledged to continue segregation.

June 5, 1956:
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson ruled in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down the Democrat's cherished “blacks in the back of the bus” law.

November 6, 1956:
Dr. Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy voted for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

September 9, 1957:
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, opposed by noted philanderer JFK, who was a commited, lifelong 'Crat.

September 24, 1957:
Ignoring criticism from lifelong, racist Democrats such as Senators John "Philanderer" Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force lifelong Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.

May 6, 1960:
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming a 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by racist Senate Democrats.

May 2, 1963:
Republicans condemned the racist Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for civil rights.

September 29, 1963:
Lifelong Democrat Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defied an order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson (appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower) to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964:
Republicans condemned the 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Senator and Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate as a Democrat.

June 10, 1964:
Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticized the Democrat filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act led by Al Gore's racist father. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by many lifelong Democrat senators. Democrat President Lyndon Johnson had to turn to Dirksen, the Republican from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965:
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes strenuous Democrat attempts to doom the 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans voted for this landmark civil right legislation, while racist Democrats opposed it. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished "literacy tests" and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting.

February 19, 1976:
Republican President Gerald Ford formally rescinds racist Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing the illegal and immoral mass internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.

September 15, 1981:
Republican President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities to increase African-American participation in federal education programs.

June 29, 1982:
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs a 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. which Democrats opposed.

August 10, 1988:
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, finally compensating Japanese-Americans for the deprivation of their civil rights and property suffered during the mass illegal and immoral internments ordered by the noted racist Democrat Roosevelt.

November 21, 1991:
Republican President George H. W. Bush signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation as a countermeasure to Democrat racism.

August 20, 1996:
A Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of the Contract With America, became law over the opposition of racist 'Crats.

After all this, is it any wonder that the party of hatred, racism, and slavery will do anything to keep a black man from being their Presidential candidate?
 
Last edited:
The democratic party's claim of "That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws..." does seem to be a bit, shall we say, inaccurate.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
Click to expand...
 
Not long after I got home from Viet Nam my last tour, I liked what the democratic party had to say about civil rights and several other things. So I joined up and worked with them to push the agenda they claimed to support.

Funny thing is I found myself arguing against many of the things they did to "support" their declared agenda because I could clearly see that what thye were doing was at odds with what they said they wanted to do. But still, from my POV, saying they wanted to do something about problems was better than the "leave it alone and it'll go away" approach the republican party was putting out.

The failure of the Carter administration's policies I thought would have given the democratic party the heads up that their methods do not work in an economy highly dependent on international trade. Reagan took over, and so did republican do-nothing policies on non-economic domestic issues. As I thought, ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away policies worked no better than the keep-them-dependent policies of the democratic party. I did appreciate some of what the Reagan administration did for the military (and regretted the issues they continued to ignore), and fully supported the build up of forces that was targeted primarily at the ready reserve.

I fully supported Bill Clinton's bid for the presidency over Bush Sr. Even worked as a volunteer at the local campaign office. But I did argue, once again, about the methods the democratic party supports to achieve the goals they claim to support. It made me very unpopular and I tended to get handed shit jobs around the campaign office.

The second Clinton campaign I was actually told to "shut your nigger mouth" by one of the campaign office officials. Pretty much pissed me off, and the dude and I were quite unfriendly toward each other the rest of the campaign. The office manager worked hard to keep us apart. The when Gore was running for President, the office manage WAS the dude who told me to shut my nigger mouth. He told me to stay home unless I was called. So I wrote the registration office in my home town here in Montana and changed my registration to independent.

The point of this long ramble is the democratic party holds, IMO, many laudible ideals. But their actions do not support their ideals. They claim to be fighting poverty, but support programs that only keep the poor on subsistence. They claim to be working to reduce racism and raise minorities to equality, but support programs that only focus on race and keep minorities dependent on assistance. They claim to be about the principles of liberty: free speech, free press, etc, but support laws that go against enumerated constitutional rights, ridicule those who exercise freedom of religion, frobid free exercise of religion by anyone involved in government, make criminals of people who keep and bear the "wrong" kind of arms. They claim to be a philosophy of tolerance of other cultures and ideas, but become frighteningly vehement when confronted with people who disagree with their beliefs. They claim to support he ideal that all people are created (evolved, that is) equal, except those who they define as not being people so they can kill them by the millions.

Of course, I still do not like the republican's "ignore it and it will go away" approach to social problems either. But I am finding that when talking to republicans, I am listened to, on average, with more respect, even if the result is being told my ideas are stupid. (which isn't exactly polite when put in those terms - but is better than being told to shut my nigger mouth.

but do not get me wrong on this. There are a great many very good people out there who are democrats. Obama is proabably one of them. And I do still support the ideals the democratic party lists under their philosophy. But, I am sorry to say, I just no longer believe the democratic PARTY (as opposed to democratic individuals) actually supports the ideals they claim to support. And, to tie this long rambling nonsense into this thread, that includes their platform on civil rights.
 
PorterM said:
If you want the entire history, that is about where it starts. Indisputable is correct. Are there any facts that were omitted?
Click to expand...

So...the contention is that Democrats are born racists? There is something inherent in being a Democrat that has festered racism throughout American history, even though the nature & composition of the parties has changed dramatically over the years?

Do you have any idea how hopelessly hackish people like you & indisputable sound?
 
Onceler said:
So...the contention is that Democrats are born racists? There is something inherent in being a Democrat that has festered racism throughout American history, even though the nature & composition of the parties has changed dramatically over the years?

Do you have any idea how hopelessly hackish people like you & indisputable sound?
Click to expand...
What you do not seem to be recognizing is the discussion is focussed on the democratic party, not democrats as individuals. As I stated earlier, democrats as individuals (with the exception of some far left wackos - matched by the idiocy of far right wackos) are good people with honest concerns. But the record of the democratic party is clear.

While the democratic party proclaims a platform of racial equality, their voting record and the type of programs they support are at cross purposes to their proclaimed philosophy. After working hard for a lot of years within the democratic party on these issues, only to be essentially kicked out for daring to disagree with them, I have become convinced the democratic party as an organization are only concerned with power. The programs they support, and the policies they pursue, and their tendency to vote against progress in civil rights all indicate their desire to keep minorities in a state of repression and dependence.

They take advantage of the dichotomy between the democratic and republican platforms. The republican platform of ignore it and it will go away denies the reality that racial tensions in our society still cause people of color to have difficulties competing. The republican party ignores the fact that the high level of black criminals in prison is as much to do with differential between races in prosecution of criminals as the fact that crime rates follow poverty which is high percentage minority. The perception, then, is that republicans - as individuals - either do not care, are are actually racists and desire to keep racism active. This perception is, in my experience, not true. The average republican individual is no more racist than the average democratic individual.

OTOH, the democratic party makes sure their policy of caring about racism is well publicized. The public policy of the Democratic party cares about racism and wishes to end it. (Which, when talking about individuals, is mostly true.) But then the democratic party pursues policies which extend the problems of racism and continue to keep racial tensions high. The reason is the public policy of caring about minority races brings minorities into their camp. And the actions that are essentially designed to keep progress at a minimum, and a voting record that does the same, keeps minorities in their camp. If too much progress were allowed, minorities may start looking at other issues, and the democratic party would lose what is essentially a guaranteed voting base.
 
"The programs they support, and the policies they pursue, and their tendency to vote against progress in civil rights all indicate their desire to keep minorities in a state of repression and dependence."

That's a little too insidious for me, and I tend to err on "cynical" when it comes to politics. Perhaps some feel that way, but I seriously doubt this is a systemic, unspoken strategy of most in the Dem party. I think the heart is in the right place on most legislation, but - as with almost any venture - there is a mixed bag of success & failure. A program like Head Start is a great example of the former, and has lifted many minority children up to a competitive level as far as education goes. Affirmative action - and I would agree that it is debatable as to whether or not it is still necessary - WAS at one time necessary, and certainly helped level the playing field.

I'm not inclined to give Democrats a pass on the failures, but overall, as you acknowledge, the Democratic Party has been the source of almost all of the ideas & actions that have helped the minority community. The GOP has generally taken the ignore it & maybe it will go away approach, and has gone so far as to employ the despicable "Southern strategy" in the '70's to divide & repress the minority vote.

That's why threads like this one kind of rub me the wrong way.
 
Onceler said:
"The programs they support, and the policies they pursue, and their tendency to vote against progress in civil rights all indicate their desire to keep minorities in a state of repression and dependence."

That's a little too insidious for me, and I tend to err on "cynical" when it comes to politics. Perhaps some feel that way, but I seriously doubt this is a systemic, unspoken strategy of most in the Dem party. I think the heart is in the right place on most legislation, but - as with almost any venture - there is a mixed bag of success & failure. A program like Head Start is a great example of the former, and has lifted many minority children up to a competitive level as far as education goes. Affirmative action - and I would agree that it is debatable as to whether or not it is still necessary - WAS at one time necessary, and certainly helped level the playing field.

I'm not inclined to give Democrats a pass on the failures, but overall, as you acknowledge, the Democratic Party has been the source of almost all of the ideas & actions that have helped the minority community. The GOP has generally taken the ignore it & maybe it will go away approach, and has gone so far as to employ the despicable "Southern strategy" in the '70's to divide & repress the minority vote.

That's why threads like this one kind of rub me the wrong way.
Click to expand...
A little more cynicism would do you well. There is a reason that, while most civil rights legislation originated with the democratic party, when push comes to shove in most vote actions a majority of democrats end up voting against it. And I do NOT give the democratic a pass on failures when they continue to pursue policies based on proven failures. Nor do I give the democratic party a pass on using their own, reverse version of the southern strategy when it comes to courting minority votes.

And you might read up a little more on the "Southern Strategy". It was not designed to split or repress the minority vote. (they were not that dumb) It was designed to take advantage of racist white democrats in the south who were disgruntled with the numbers of blacks joining the democratic party. The republican strategy deliberately (and despicably) sought the white racist vote in the south while actively seeking to polarize the southern vote along racial lines.

And what the democratic party is doing today in deliberately seeking racist black voters is no better. I have been called "nigger" and racist (as in anti-black racist) by more black democrats over the years than all whites - including southern whites - combined. I was called a racist right here on this forum by a (supposed) black democratic socialist. And the denigration is almost always in response to my criticism of democratic race based programs.
 
There is another aspect of democratic policies that you may want to look into with respect to their intent toward minorities. Do some research on the design and effectiveness of programs aimed at Native Americans living on reservations. The net effect was to keep NAs on the reservations (where real opportunities are minimal), dependent on assistance provided to reservations, and, of course, voting democratic for providing that assistance while the republican party ignored NA problems altogether.
 
Is this another "democrats are bad for black people" brain-dead thread that totally ignores facts and history?

Looks as if it is.

It begins with a comparison of the Democratic and Republican Parties of the past, completely ignoring the fact that they were once both the same political party, the Democratic-Republican Party which was founded by Thomas Jefferson, the Republican Party was founded as a anti-slavery party but todays Republican Party has almost no relationship to the party that was founded, that until Roosevelt almost all blacks were republicans, and the Democratic Party was once the party of racism which it no longer is .. as evidenced by the vast number of elected black democrats as opposed to the minscule number of elected black republicans .. as well as evidenced by a huge plethora of other really quite obvious factors.

And of course this nonsense completely ignores that republicans courted racism and laid out the welcome carpet for its proponents .. as evidenced by Nixon's Southern Strategy.

In the really real world of modern-day politics the democrats, with a big assist from many independants and REPUBLICANS, are about to elect the first African-American American President .. how about starting the conversation from there .. then how about we completely destroy the uber-ignorant thought that "'Crats are going to rob Obama" .. an amazingly stupid thought.

For those who have been paying attention, the democratic nominating process is already over. Democrats are just waiting for the Clintons to play themselves out .. but the Democratic Party has had no hand in trying to derail Obama .. in fact, most observers believe the party is tilted towards Obama, from Pelosi, Dean, super delegates, party insiders, and a lot of influential ex-Clintonites who now support Obama. Andrew just flipped the other day .. but only people who pay attention know that. Those speaking from the ass of a failed ideology don't have a clue what the fuck is going on anyway.

I also noticed a bit of "democrats are bad for native people" imaginary madness creeping in as well. Again, incredibly stupid and not supported by Native American voting patterns, who like all minorities, are intelligent enough to determine who and what serves in their best interest, and who are in fact decidely democratic.

Obviously the ever shrinking clan of the right doesn't have much to talk about these days .. and prescious little to make themselves believe they are any smarter than anyone else .. in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Wow, despite being on completely the incorrect side of the issue, Good Luck has managed to out-argue Onceler, one of the smarter leftists.

That takes some skill.

I await to see how you respond to blackascoal.
 
Epicurus said:
Wow, despite being on completely the incorrect side of the issue, Good Luck has managed to out-argue Onceler, one of the smarter leftists.

That takes some skill.

I await to see how you respond to blackascoal.
Click to expand...
I do not bother with blackascoal. To his reckoning, I am a racist - despite my being 1/2 NA and 1/4 black. He has repeatedly taken an issue being debated and made it about personality. There is little use debating such as he is.

As for being on the "wrong" side, we'll see. But there are indications that there is going to be a significant shift nation wide in the NA vote. NAs, in addition to being a strongly social conservative people, are less than pleased with the progress made under the promises of the democratic party. We are especially upset with the way the CBC has treated NA issues over the years.

And I should make clear that my suspicions of the way the actions of the democratic party only supporting minimal progress in the issue of racial equality are NOT due to a belief the democratic party is a party of racists. My belief - due to over 20 years of experience working with the democratic party - stems from the belief that the democratic party views minority races as a significant source of their power, and as such desire to assure minorities remain that way. Of note is the fact that most of those minorities who traditionally vote republican are minorities of the mid to upper socio-economic classes. If a larger percentage of minorities climb to the mid and upper classes, the democratic party loses their grip on them as a voting block.

As to the intelligence of minority voters, for most minorities they have a choice between a party that pretty much dismisses their issues and has even gone so far as to court the white racist vote, and a party that claims to be an advocate of their issues. Of course they will vote for those who - on the surface anyway - are their advocates, when the alternative is a party that seems to refuse to recognize the issues of racism in our society. That is not a lack of intelligence for choosing the party that has historically made minimal progress, it is a lack of better alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Good luck , do you being of mixed ethnicity make you immune to being racist?


Why dont you answer me straight for once?

Why is it if what you claim is true about the democratic party then why is it so many black people cant figure out the "truth" about the democratic party?

I say its because you are dead wrong and to bullheaded to realize the truth. The republican party has racism at its core. The democratic party is the party that wants all boats to rise. The republican party is the party of the people with vast wealth that want to control the rest of the country through economic means. There are Americans with vast wealth who agree with me and know whats going on and dont like it. Some of them are even black. You now can explain to me how is it the Democratic party can fool so many black people as you claim they do?
 
Desh said:
Good luck , do you being of mixed ethnicity make you immune to being racist?


Why dont you answer me straight for once?

Why is it if what you claim is true about the democratic party then why is it so many black people cant figure out the "truth" about the democratic party?

I say its because you are dead wrong and to bullheaded to realize the truth. The republican party has racism at its core. The democratic party is the party that wants all boats to rise. The republican party is the party of the people with vast wealth that want to control the rest of the country through economic means. There are Americans with vast wealth who agree with me and know whats going on and dont like it. Some of them are even black. You now can explain to me how is it the Democratic party can fool so many black people as you claim they do?
Click to expand...

Good Luck claims to have been rejected by native Americans for being "too black" and rejected by blacks for being "too indian" .. which seems to have left him bitter and angry at both.

Compounding his phobia, he's latched on to the right who rejects him for being black and Indian.

He's been conditioned to believe that he's more intelligent and connected to the truth than anyone who is not white. Minorities are just too stupid to chart their own course and to be able to determine who and what is in their best interests.

I can fully appreciate why he's been rejected by both blacks and indians who reject people based on race FAR less than the group he has such undying affinity for.

Why are whites republicans when republicans have not acted in their best interests .. can he answer that?

African-Americans were once all republicans .. were we eqaully as "uninformed" then .. or did we become uninformed when we switched to the Democratic Party with Roosevelt and his New Deal .. which resulted in a demonstrative improvement in thr quality of life for black Americans?

Republicans haven't just been the party of racists, which is hardly disputable, but they've also been the indisputable party of sexism, homophobia, and today, Islamophobia.

The evidence is indisputable that republicans openly courted racists and not just with Nixon's southern strategy. He's speaking from ideology, not intelligence or an intelligent analysis of the facts.

He doesn't respond to me because he can't do that with any degree of logic or common sense.

go figure
 
Last edited:
Most 'Licans cant seem to ever answer this question I keep asking without outing their true feelings about people of color.

I have yet to get one answer on this subject that wasnt racist. Most just never answer it.
 
blackascoal said:
Good Luck claims to have been rejected by native Americans for being "too black" and rejected by blacks for being "too indian" .. which seems to have left him bitter and angry at both.

Compounding his phobia, he's latched on to the right who rejects him for being black and Indian.

He's been conditioned to believe that he's more intelligent and connected to the truth than anyone who is not white. Minorities are just too stupid to chart their own course and to be able to determine who and what is in their best interests.

I can fully appreciate why he's been rejected by both blacks and indians who reject people based on race FAR less than the group he has such undying affinity for.

Why are whites republicans when republicans have not acted in their best interests .. can he answer that?

Republicans haven't just been the party of racists, which is hardly disputable, but they've also been the indisputable party of sexism, homophobia, and today, Islamophobia.

The evidence is indisputable that republicans openly courted racists and not just with Nixon's southern strategy.

He doesn't respond to me because he can't do that with any degree of logic or common sense.

go figure
Click to expand...
I (usually) do not bother answering you because you are closed minded, far too likely to abandon an issue to attack personality, and for someone accusing another of being bitter and angry, shows a lot of anger and bitterness himself.

No, I am not bitter toward NA's for the way they treated me when I was a child living on the reservation. Nor am I bitter toward blacks, as my exposure to their anti-NA sentiment was minimal.

I spent 40 years in an organization that actively discourages racism. Sure, when I first joined the anti-racism policy was minimally (if at all) enforced. But by the mid 70s it was actively enforced and has been since. If a person continually shows racist attitudes and refuses to control their remarks or actions, they are discharged.

I have explained many times what I see in the way the democratic party treats its assistance programs. And these assistance programs are NOT limited to race based programs. The programs are TRAPS. People get into the assistance trap and it is very difficult to get out of it because they way they are designed the people lose more trying to help themselves than if they just keep their efforts to a minimum.

Of course not ALL programs work that way. But there are enough of them that have been going on long enough I cannot imagine the PTBs being unaware of their long term effect.

The voters are not "stupid" for voting for the party that supports such programs. Nor have I even said they are stupid, nor in any way implied they are stupid. This is a textbook example of the strawman argument. The people have a choice between a political party that either does something direct and visible for their problems - even if it is far less than perfect, or a political party that does little to nothing direct and visible for their problems. It does not matter whether the program is to address racist problems or economic problems. The democratic party supports policies which result in direct and visible assistance, and the republican party, for the most part, does not. Of COURSE the people who benefit from the democratic programs are going to vote primarily democratic. That is not stupid, it is smart.

And many of the people DO recognize the problems with the way assistance programs are designed. Do you think no one, or very few people who are on assistance complain about the way the programs are designed? Do you think the average person, when finding out if they work a little too much they lose more assistance than the additional work makes up for, just accepts the situation? But those who do complain are most likely told to "shut their (whatever derogatory adjective fits best) mouths.

What is stupid is those who support a dichotomous view between the political parties. We even see it here on political BBS. The claims that the democratic party cares and the republican party are evil racist elitists. Nor is this attitude limited to democrats. Republicans, too, have their dichotomous attitudes. That simplistic dichotomy is not only stupid, but a big source of the divisiveness we have in modern politics.

Both PARTIES are about political power and nothing else. I am not talking about the people who support the parties but rather the people who run the parties and seek political office through the parties. But when push comes to shove, any active politician seeking office is NOT doing so out of some altruistic motivations to make the world better. They seek office for political power, and they use which ever political philosophy and support whatever political policies they think will keep them in power the longest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top