Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Procrustes Stretched]

another idiot on the right?

nuf said

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest ...

USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

Posted 7/14/2005 11:49 PM

GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
By Morry Gash, AP

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

 

[Rousseau]

I know what classical liberalism is, which in pretty much the same as my view of conservatism, it sure the hell isn’t in anyway related to today’s liberal views

Exactly! You're catching on! Yes, classical liberalism is belief in free market, limited government etc. I assumed it would confuse you because you seem to be so entrenched in a two-dimensional, Conservative vs. Liberal understanding of politics. Let's see if you can stay on track with this one...

"Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

Ok…. So what’s the problem? Like I said maybe you should start a thread on the history of conservatism in the United States. My views of conservatism are as I stated, limited government and individual liberties again whats the problem?

*snap* *snap*

Hey kid, over here! Have you already forgotten what were talking about?

You purported that the Republican party and conservatism is basically the same as it was 1860s. It's taken me, what? Maybe 4 or 5 in-depth posts correcting your misconception and you're STILL ignoring it and going off-topic.

Okay that's great what you think personally and all, but your personal views on conservatism are completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. What is relevant is the change in Conservative ideology and the Republican party since the 1860s.

Remember your last post when you stated "Conservatism is a constant", I corrected you and you're ignoring it.

It would seem to me that classical liberalism and progressivism would be opposites unless these progressive democrats todays “Liberals” implement their views through the constitutional process which is defiantly not what these” liberal” Democrats are doing.

My god you are a trip, look, your short attention span has caused you to completely forget what you were talking about mid-sentence.

It would seem to me that classical liberalism and progressivism would be opposites

Nope, do I need to re-post? Did you just barely figure out what classical liberalism is?

"Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism, and progressivism."

Republican Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you've learned anything from my posts, you should know politics is not a two-sided plane of Conservative vs. Liberal. This is how ignorant people who don't understand the complexity of politics view everything, so stop it. I showed you a modern Conservative ideology (Neoconservatism) which was originally influenced by Marxism. I showed you how the Republican party has shifted ideologies since it's founding. Do you understand?

Regardless, this thread was intended to show that the Republican Party has always been a traditional ally of African Americans they still are in my view.

That's nice, you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as you keep replying to me, I will keep bombarding you with facts. If you don't want to risk having your view shaken, then don't make it public.

If you believe in all the things you have stated (and you specifically said classical liberalism) then the modern GOP is not YOUR ally, because like, the above quote... the Republican party HISTORICALLY advocated classical liberalism before it's ideological realignment in the mid-1960s. You need to get beyond media sound-bites and talking points, and get some in-depth education in American politics.


Okay moving on, now for your great history lesson on Frederick Douglass (this is gonna be fun)...

The Great Frederick Douglass.. Former Slave, Abolitionist, Conservative (Constitutionalist) Republican

You're making me cringe here... mostly because it's obvious you don't understand what you're saying, and I'm almost embarrassed for you. Frederick Douglass has never, EVER, been referred to as a Conservative... or a Constitutionalist... YOU just gave him that label. And I think it's not because you mean to mislabel him, but because you have no idea what you are talking about.

So are you saying Frederick Douglass did not believe in the principals of our constitution? And the founding? If you do then you’re clueless. I gave you one of his quotes were am I going wrong here? Educate me.

Everyone interprets the document differently, even Douglass himself at one point considered the Constitution to be pro-slavery and rejected the document (he and William Lloyd Garrison were abolitionists who thought Constitution to be an evil document, referring to the Three-fifths compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution).

"Douglass eventually came to agree with Smith and Lysander Spooner that the United States Constitution was an anti-slavery document. This reversed his earlier agreement with William Lloyd Garrison that it was pro-slavery. Garrison had publicly expressed his opinion by burning copies of the Constitution."

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be completely honest, the Constitution was in favor of the Southern states at the time because of the Three-fifths compromise.

"The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Constitution Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman."

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.

Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hence, why Douglass and other abolitionists originally rejected the Constitution, then backlashed with their own different interpretation, differing from that of the pro-Slavery advocates. This was part of the political battle at the time, was who could interpret the Constitution to better fit their views.

My point being, you mislabeled Frederick Douglass, not because you meant to but because you don't understand what you are talking about and are attempting to use simple-minded inaccurate labels. I'm getting kind of sick of having to teach American history to you.

 

[California Girl]

That's all good history .. MEANINGLESS today.

Fast forward to today and the Republican Party is a shadow of its former self. No connection whatsoever.

Your pro-BORN-life stance has no bearing on the topic.

Try this one on for size ...

Which party do you think all those black elected officials belong to?

That's the Congressional Black Caucus in 1973

Republicans will never have that many black members of Congress.

Today's Republican Party is an all-white party that has no interest in the African-American struggle.

That's not a secret.

Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it.

Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true.

Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining.

I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.

Not true????

The Republican Party is 90% white.

You're 94% stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest

1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party’s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.

2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.

3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.

4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.

5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, “On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, “Let My People go.” We…came to believe it as a great and solemn command.

8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, “The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation…
”
9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. “Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.” To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.

10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.

11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families

12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, “Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.

13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, “Mystic Years.”

14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.


15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn’t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.

16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. “By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife’s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands’ eves. By fear….In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves…and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.”


17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, “…Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery….For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.”

18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.

19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.

20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.

21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

Black History

You seem to be confusing the past with the present.

Today's Republicans don't get credit for what Republicans of yesteryear, yester-decade, or yester-century did,

any more than I get credit for being a WWII veteran because my father was.

This asinine myth gets run in every few months on every political msg board, and it never gets any less retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every Southern Republican in Congress voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do you suppose that was?

 

[rdean]

Firstly, 'never' is a very long time. None of us know what the future holds so making such claims show only stupidity. You cannot prove it.

Secondly, it's not a secret..... because it isn't true.

Please continue to post your hysterical whining though, it's entertaining.

I do apologize that I cannot continue this discussion with you. I am not fluent in 'stupid'.

Not true????

The Republican Party is 90% white.

You're 94% stupid.

You mean the Republican Party ISN'T 90% white?

 

[Tank]

The Republican Party is 90% white.

So are scientists

 

[Jroc]

You purported that the Republican party and conservatism is basically the same as it was 1860s. It's taken me, what? Maybe 4 or 5 in-depth posts correcting your misconception and you're STILL ignoring it and going off-topic.

Okay that's great what you think personally and all, but your personal views on conservatism are completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. What is relevant is the change in Conservative ideology and the Republican party since the 1860s.

Not really... the point was Lincoln's and Frederick Douglass's views (not in his early years) were closer to today’s conservatives then what you propose, the simple fact that individual liberties are the bedrock of today’s conservative movement, which are constitutional principals, These principles would have never allowed Slavery to endure whether you want to acknowledge it or not, labels change but the principles do not. When Lincoln said he’s a conservative, I take it that he knows what he’s talking about. Damn!... I can’t find the quote I want. oh well.

Nope, do I need to re-post? Did you just barely figure out what classical liberalism is?

"Prior to the formation of the conservative coalition, which helped realign the Democratic and Republican party ideologies in the mid-1960s, the Republican party historically advocated classical liberalism, and progressivism."


If you've learned anything from my posts, you should know politics is not a two-sided plane of Conservative vs. Liberal. This is how ignorant people who don't understand the complexity of politics view everything, so stop it. I showed you a modern Conservative ideology (Neoconservatism) which was originally influenced by Marxism. I showed you how the Republican party has shifted ideologies since it's founding. Do you understand?

The problem with you and people like you is you want to cloud the issue, deflecting the “conservative” cause with.. this history... that history.. conservatives were progressive.. Conservatives were liberals.. Classic liberalism.. and progressives.. blah.. blah…blah..It’s all a smoke screen commonly used to confused people that don’t know any better, that crap doesn’t work with me. We all know what todays conservative movement stands for, and right now the Republican party is what we have to advance that movement. of course there are different factions in the party but we have to deal with them.

That's nice, you are entitled to your opinion, but as long as you keep replying to me, I will keep bombarding you with facts. If you don't want to risk having your view shaken, then don't make it public.

You give yourself too much credit sir.

If you believe in all the things you have stated (and you specifically said classical liberalism) then the modern GOP is not YOUR ally, because like, the above quote... the Republican Party HISTORICALLY advocated classical liberalism before it's ideological realignment in the mid-1960s. You need to get beyond media sound-bites and talking points, and get some in-depth education in American politics.

Like I said the Republican party is what we have, and its moving in our direction, but thanks for you’re concern.

Everyone interprets the document differently, even Douglass himself at one point considered the Constitution to be pro-slavery and rejected the document (he and William Lloyd Garrison were abolitionists who thought Constitution to be an evil document, referring to the Three-fifths compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution).

"Douglass eventually came to agree with Smith and Lysander Spooner that the United States Constitution was an anti-slavery document. This reversed his earlier agreement with William Lloyd Garrison that it was pro-slavery. Garrison had publicly expressed his opinion by burning copies of the Constitution."

Exactly!! which is why Douglass eventually split from and denounced Garrison’s views this is how he put it…

to re-think the whole subject, and to study, with some care, not only the just and proper rules of legal interpretation, but the origin, design, nature, rights, powers, and duties of civil government.” This rethinking, he reported, brought about “a radical change in my opinions.” At the center of that change was a radical reappraisal of the American Founding

.

Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom, in Autobiographies,

To be completely honest, the Constitution was in favor of the Southern states at the time because of the Three-fifths compromise.

Wrong the real purpose was to limit the power of the slave holding states.. I don't want to hear any crap about Beck, this video is a good lession for people who don't fully understand the purpose of the three-fifths clause...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVONzyPRhU[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 3/5ths clause was to give the South more representation in return for its agreement to tariff taxes.

Absolutely no credible evidence or analysis suggests that Lincoln or Douglass were conservatives by post-Reagan definitions.

 

[rdean]

The Republican Party is 90% white.

So are scientists

Yes, but scientists are only 6% Republican. Why would anyone think the percentage would be "higher"?

 

[Tank]

Yes, but scientists are only 6% Republican.

And the rest are independents.

 

[Jroc]

The 3/5ths clause was to give the South more representation in return for its agreement to tariff taxes.

Ok.....I guess Federick Douglass didn't agree with you

Absolutely no credible evidence or analysis suggests that Lincoln or Douglass were conservatives by post-Reagan definitions.

You mean by By your definition? Humm... I guess there are others that agree with me

Abraham Lincoln’s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.
Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.

Lincoln?s Conservative Vision | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist. Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient. Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital. Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.

Frederick Douglass was abolitionist. FD would not talk to Jroc.

The OP failed a long time ago.

 

[Douger]

Are you referring to people with dual citizenship or murkin citizens who were born in Africa ?

 

[Jroc]

Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist. Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient. Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital. Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.

Frederick Douglass was abolitionist. FD would not talk to Jroc.

The OP failed a long time ago.

This coming from a person who doesn't even understand the reason for the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. So far all we've gotten from you is quick it and run statements, Frederick Douglass wouldn’t have talked to me? Please....If you knew anything about him you'd know he spoke to people who agreed and disagreed with him so you're statement just affirms how clueless you really are.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

another idiot on the right?

nuf said

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest ...

USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

Posted 7/14/2005 11:49 PM

GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman apologized to one of the nation's largest black civil rights groups Thursday, saying Republicans had not done enough to court blacks in the past and had exploited racial strife to court white voters, particularly in the South.

"It's not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized," said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
By Morry Gash, AP

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc, you quote from other far right nutters. Real Republicans or libertarian flirters such as John Boehner would never support your contention while Ron and Rand Paul would hoot.

Keep posting. Your fun. Oh, ignoring history and definitions and facts makes life easier for you, I know.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Recounting the history of a LONG DEAD Republican Party does not make republicans any friend of African-Americans today. Today's Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self.

Note to the wise, friends don't have to declare themselves as your best friend. That is decided by the other party, not you.

The rush to pretend "friendship" with a people the right has spent hundreds of years attacking is all based on the reality that white America is shrinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship or understanding. Not even remotely.

Is the right prepared to stop attacking our heroes and champions who put their lives on the line for the struggle for equality?

NO, they are not.

Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for humdreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?

NO, they are not.

Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?

NO, HELL NO, they are not.

Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."

Nobody is buying it.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Lincoln was anti-slavery, not abolitionist. Lincoln believed in strong national government to which the states were subservient. Lincoln believed that labor pre-empted capital. Lincoln would laugh his head off at Jroc's silliness.

Frederick Douglass was abolitionist. FD would not talk to Jroc.

The OP failed a long time ago.

This coming from a person who doesn't even understand the reason for the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution. So far all we've gotten from you is quick it and run statements, Frederick Douglass wouldn’t have talked to me? Please....If you knew anything about him you'd know he spoke to people who agreed and disagreed with him so you're statement just affirms how clueless you really are.

I know Douglass very well and he would find no affinity with you .. neither would W.E.B Dubois. Your best bet would have been to talk to Booker T Washington .. who was lost and desperately searching for an answer .. any answer.

 

[Jroc]

Recounting the history of a LONG DEAD Republican Party does not make republicans any friend of African-Americans today. Today's Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self

It may not be quite the party it used to be, and there are plenty of people in the party that I disagree with, but as compared to the leftists in the Democrat party Most Republican are Constitutionalist.

Note to the wise, friends don't have to declare themselves as your best friend. That is decided by the other party, not you.

Then you better beware of the Democrats, because thats all they do” we are friends of the poor” "we are friends of minorities” I think you actually described them quite well

The rush to pretend "friendship" with a people the right has spent hundreds of years attacking is all based on the reality that white America is shrinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship or understanding. Not even remotely.

You’re way off base with that one. Conservatives are color blind. It is the left that sees everyone in groups. They don’t look at the American people as a whole. it seems you have the same view. And let me remind you, I am a Jew, most racist that don’t like blacks, don’t like Jews either

Is the right prepared to stop attacking our heroes and champions who put their lives on the line for the struggle for equality?


NO, they are not.

Give me an example of you’re heroes? Have I attacked anybody personally?

Is the right prepared to accept that genuine and brutal racism has existed in this nation for hundreds of years, still exists, and are prepared to address sane and civil remedies?

NO, they are not.

Is the right prepared to reject and eject the monsters and racists among them who promote white supremacy?

NO, HELL NO, they are not.

Humm…who promotes white Supremacy? They sure as hell aren’t part of any Republican Party that I know of. If there are some then point them out. I would like to know who they are myself

Please save your bullshit delusion of "friendship."

Nobody is buying it.

You know what? I really don’t see why you’re so bitter were will it get you? Why don’t you appreciate the blessing you have simply by being born in this country? Why would you think I am you’re enemy? Do you know me? were in anything that I have posted would lead you to believe that I am you’re enemy? you might like this video...well then again you probably wont


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbKRvED41g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbKRvED41g[/ame]