RNC - Racist?

The usual game. Outrage that some none liberal would ever vote for some person the liberals do not like. But then the true test, the response when the leftoid of their party is exposed doing similar things and the response is " well gee, I won't like it when I STILL vote for him or her."

Everyone forced to vote for Bush because the chose given left no choice are retards and idiots and loyal supporters of Bush. But when a Liberal is forced to vote for someone not their choice for the EXACT same reason it is of course completely different. They, unlike us retards, are doing it for the "good of the Country". Us? We were just to stupid to make such a distinction. We had drank the "koolaid" and other petty little sayings.

When a Liberal votes for the lesser of two evils it is for the "common good" when a conservative does it, it is because they are stupid morons unable to see the "truth".
 
I'll pass on the deflection. Fact is, in ACTUAL evidence, the only difference between one and the other is YOUR political bias. If pulling a "Trent Lott" works on Ron Paul, so does it work on Obama.

I realize that you Northeast folks think you're the only ones that matter, but I assure you that you do not.

Odd that it's always you folks from the Northeast who hear these so-called messages no one else does. I require no one to tell me what to believe on any issue ... neither some fantasy "Southern conspiracy," nor Yankees who have annointed themselves as knowing what I should think.

And I sure as Hell won't be voting for whoever they stick out there with an (R) and behind his name, unlike you lefties who will march down in lockstep and push the (D) button no matter who's name is there.

Actually, 7 years ago, a lot of "D's", including myself, would have voted for John McCain. But after he got Karl Roved in the Carolinas, his political survival instincts trumped his doing the right thing and standing up for what he believed in.

And like you'd vote for a dem, right? Which one? Joe Biden? I would have, too... but I haven't been given that choice. And, yes, between someone who thinks he has to "sell" Iraq as having been a success to win election, and someone who is going to appoint normal justices to the Supreme Court and the District and Circuit Appeals Courts, yep... have to go with a Democrat. Thing is, I'm not uncomfortable with either candidate. Had Kucinich been the candidate, I probably would have sucked it up and voted for McCain or not voted at all (for the first time in my adult life).

Does that help?

And you can pretend all you want that there's no "Southern Strategy", just like you can pretend that Karl Rove wasn't working for a PRM (permanent republican majority) by manipulating certain wedge issues, but that doesn't make it any less true.
 
Actually, 7 years ago, a lot of "D's", including myself, would have voted for John McCain. But after he got Karl Roved in the Carolinas, his political survival instincts trumped his doing the right thing and standing up for what he believed in.

And like you'd vote for a dem, right? Which one? Joe Biden? I would have, too... but I haven't been given that choice. And, yes, between someone who thinks he has to "sell" Iraq as having been a success to win election, and someone who is going to appoint normal justices to the Supreme Court and the District and Circuit Appeals Courts, yep... have to go with a Democrat. Thing is, I'm not uncomfortable with either candidate. Had Kucinich been the candidate, I probably would have sucked it up and voted for McCain or not voted at all (for the first time in my adult life).

Does that help?

And you can pretend all you want that there's no "Southern Strategy", just like you can pretend that Karl Rove wasn't working for a PRM (permanent republican majority) by manipulating certain wedge issues, but that doesn't make it any less true.


Although Biden is somewhat arrogant, I'd vote for him over all three that are currently running. I don't think I've ever seen the race for the president reduced to this type of ignorance.
 
Interesting, I heard this on the news yesterday. All that matters in republican politics today is that you win, Rove proved that. Race will affect some voting decisions but it would seem that part is not necessary, so the question is what else are they looking for? They can't do to Obama as they did to McCain. :rofl:
 
I don't think anyone should single out the entire Republican party on racism. Thats crazy!

I do remember George Wallace was a Democrat! Did that make the entire Democratic party a bunch of racists?
 
No, its Obamas ties with Farrakhan, Islam,

What ties with Islam? That is more of the bullshit being spread out there.

He is a Christian, for whatever that is worth.

I also put a quesion mark on this thread.

For much of 20th-century politics, one of the dilemmas of being a liberal was that vast swathes of America teemed with unsavory and grossly illiberal characters who were fiercely loyal to the Democratic Party. This is because -- despite its Northern, progressive elements -- the Democratic Party was ironically the historic home of Jim Crow. The party of FDR, Harry Truman and Julian Bond also harbored America's staunchest segregationists. The breakaway "Dixiecrat" movement of 1948 was led by a South Carolina Democrat named Strom Thurmond.

Thurmond said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force... the southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches."

Strom changed parties after a turncoat southerner named Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. LBJ then said that Democrats had lost the South for the next generation. He was right. In a rush of bitter defections, southern voters and politicians fled the Democratic Party.

Richard Nixon, campaigning in 1968, did his utmost to assure that America's segregationist diehards, white supremacists and anti-Semites would find a new political klavern. Nixon invented the "race card" and transformed the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and the wellspring of the Emancipation Proclamation, into the last bastion of the Confederacy. The G.O.P. has been playing the same hand -- with remarkable impunity -- in every election since.

As Robert Kuttner noted in a January 2003 issue of The American Prospect, ever since Nixon devised his southern strategy, "the Republican grand electoral design has been based on locking up the white South while playing to the white backlash in the North. Often the appeals to race are tacit, sometimes they are crude; but the stance is unmistakable to anyone who bothered to notice."

Among the cruder of these appeals was the Willie Horton slander fomented against Michael Dukakis on behalf of George H.W. Bush in 1988 by a campaign hatchetman named Roger Ailes, who is now CEO of Fox News. Comparatively tacit among the G.O.P.'s racist efforts was the suppression of black votes in Florida in 2000 (and again in Ohio in 2004). The winner both times, George W. Bush, insists that he’s "compassionate" about blacks, especially the type who reject "affirmative action," "quotas," and other liberal stumbling blocks to a "color-blind" America. And he loves getting his picture taken with pickaninnies.

The Republicans deny that they are the electoral refuge for America's bigots. But whenever an ex-Klansman, decrying the mongrelization of the white race, enters a primary election somewhere in Louisiana or Texas, it's always a Republican primary.

The Republicans insist they are "working hard" to win African-American votes. But the G.O.P.'s chronic failure to crack even 10 percent among black voters indicates that they're working harder to foster a constituency they value much more dearly, commonly described as "non-college-educated white males," which is pollster code for "rednecks and yahoos."

The G.O.P. regularly trots out black appointees to showcase their openmindedness. Trouble is, when these G.O.P. "house Negroes" are allowed to speak, they avoid terms like "social justice" and "voting rights." Examined closely, they tend to be non-partisan overachievers like Colin Powell or -- at worst -- self-loathing Stepin Fetchits like Clarence Thomas. Or they're just trying to pass for white, like Condoleezza Rice.

The "race card" works for the G.O.P., in a circular way. It validates racists by giving them a place to go, thus perpetuating America's historic traditions of bigotry and segregation, which nurtures the Republicans as the party that's not prejudiced against the prejudiced. Around and around...

Still, I gotta ask: Why aren't some (or any) Republicans embarrassed?

I can't believe that most white Republicans favor racial hatred. But they must know that that their ranks include people who vote for white candidates solely because they’re white, and who would never vote for a black candidate simply because he or she is black. Surely, they must know that many of their fellow Republicans think it was a fine idea to shoot Medger Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner... Etcetera.

Democrats were embarrassed by George Wallace and Bull Connor. Why aren't Republicans embarrassed by David Duke and Bob Jones?

Maybe it's just pragmatism. The G.O.P. tolerates its hordes of red-state rednecks because, if not for all those straight-ticket bigots, the Republicans don't think they could win.

Not long ago, Democrats certainly thought so. They stayed embarrassed for a long time. But eventually, Democrats told their leaders we'd rather lose a few votes in Tallahatchie County than be on the same side as the monsters who lynched Emmett Till. They said, hey, let’s try a trade with the Republicans. They get electoral votes in Georgia, Virginia, Carolina, Alabama, Texas, etc. In return we get the legacies of Abe Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Rosa Parks, Judge James Horton, Justice Thurgood Marshall... Etcetera.

Maybe Republicans could do it, too -- tell their leaders they don't want to be the party of voter intimidation and KKK nostalgia anymore. Maybe then, the race card would finally become too risky to play, even among campaign strategists.

Yes, I hear you, Dr. King. It’s just a dream

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0313-33.htm

Dixiecrats
Dixiecrats, a splinter group of Southern Democrats in the U.S. elections of 1948, who rejected President Harry S. Truman's civil-rights program and revolted against the civil-rights plank adopted at the Democratic National Convention. A conference of states' rights leaders then met in Birmingham and suggested Gov. J. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president and Gov. Fielding Wright of Mississippi for vice president. The group hoped to force the election into the House of Representatives by preventing either Truman or his Republican opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, from obtaining a majority of the electoral votes.

The plan failed. Although Thurmond electors ran and won as the official Democratic candidates in four states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina—other Thurmond electors running as "States Rights Democrats" lost to Truman slates. Thurmond polled 22.5% of the total Southern vote to Truman's 50.1%. Nationally, Thurmond obtained 39 electoral votes with 1,169,032 popular votes. The Dixiecrat movement encouraged Northern blacks to vote for Truman, but it ultimately strengthened the Republican party in the South, for many Dixiecrats became Republicans.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0129280-00&templatename=/article/article.html

Dixiecrats—The States' Rights Party, 1948
Dr. Glenn Feldman, University of Alabama at Birmingham


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correlates to Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies 11th Grade Content Standard 12, p. 79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The States' Rights party, also known as the "Dixiecrats," was a rump party that split off from the national Democratic party and ran candidates in the 1948 presidential election.


The party sprang into existence on July 17, 1948 when it held its national convention in Birmingham, Alabama. It was the formal expression of a growing sectional and civil rights revolt against the national Democratic party.


South Carolina Governor J. Strom Thurmond and Mississippi Governor J. Fielding Wright were nominated, respectively, for president and vice-president.


Alabamians played a major role in founding, directing, and sustaining the organization. Alabama was one of the most important Dixiecrat states thanks especially to three men who may be properly referred to as the "Dixiecrat triumvirate": former-Governor Frank M. Dixon, state Democratic Executive Committee chairman Gessner T. McCorvey, and Birmingham attorney and political boss Horace C. Wilkinson.


Dixiecrats organized in response to President Harry S. Truman's proposed 1948 civil rights package, understood by many whites as the greatest threatened federal intrusion into the South since Reconstruction. The package consisted of four primary pieces of legislation: abolition of the poll tax, a federal anti-lynching law, desegregation legislation, and a permanent Federal Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent racial discrimination in jobs funded by federal dollars.


Dixiecrats portrayed their movement in the best possible light, as one designed to guarantee state sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed states' rights and reestablish Southern preeminence in the Democratic party. But the most important motive behind the movement was securing states' rights and constitutional principles in order to accomplish an overriding goal: preservation of the South's racial status quo.


In Alabama, the Dixiecrats won an intramural state fight with regular or "Loyalist" Democrats and thereby controlled the state's party machinery. As a result, incumbent President Harry Truman's name did not even appear on the 1948 presidential ballot in Alabama.


Despite the splintering of the Democratic party by the Dixiecrats on the right, and the Progressive party on the left (which nominated former Vice President and Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace), President Truman won reelection in the biggest upset in American political history. His margin of victory over Republican Thomas E. Dewey was only four-tenths of one percent. The Dixiecrats and the Progressives polled over a million votes, and the Dixiecrats were able to sweep four states (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina), securing 39 electoral votes.

http://www.alabamamoments.alabama.gov/sec54.html
 
Is it? So if someone holds a little gathering as you call it to raise money for you, showing up automatically makes you guilty by association?

Not very objective, that.

Don't know what to tell you about your "Southern Strategy" conspiracy. Lived in the South and Southwest all my life. Guess I was busy doing other things for 48 years.:rolleyes:


So we have them agreeing that Gore violated the law when he went to the Chinese religious facility and was present while they collected illegal foreign money for the Clinton Gore campaign. Glad we could settle that.
 
How is the United Church of Christ related to Farrakan and His nation of Islam?

Welcome to the United Church of Christ—a community of faith that seeks to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed. The UCC was founded in 1957 as the union of several different Christian traditions: from the beginning of our history, we were a church that affirmed the ideal that Christians did not always have to agree to live together in communion. Our motto—"that they may all be one"—is Jesus' prayer for the unity of the church. The UCC is one of the most diverse Christian churches in the United States. Use the directory on the left of this page to read stories about the history and future of our community.

About the UCC

Intelligent dialogue and a strong independent streak sometimes cause the United Church of Christ (UCC) and its 1.4 million members to be called a “heady and exasperating mix.” The UCC tends to be a mostly progressive denomination that unabashedly engages heart and mind. And yet, the UCC somehow manages to balance congregational autonomy with a strong commitment to unity among its nearly 6,000 congregations—despite wide differences among many local congregations on a variety of issues.
While preserving relevant portions of heritage and history dating back to the 16th century, the UCC and its forebears have proven themselves capable of moving forward, tying faith to social justice and shaping cutting edge theology and service in an ever-changing world. Affirming that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, the UCC claims as its own the faith of the historic church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant reformers. Yet the UCC also affirms the responsibility of the church in each generation and community to make faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. One of the UCC's distinguishing characteristics is its penchant to believe that ... God is still speaking, ... even when it puts us out there alone. History has shown that, most often, we're only alone for a while. Besides, we receive so many gifts from our ecumenical partners, being "early" seems to be one of ours.

The UCC recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.

Also linked from this page: the meaning of the United Church of Christ logo with copies of the logo in different formats for use by local churches, a copy of our Constitution, a brochure about the new structure of the UCC's national ministries, the UCC Archives Page with links to various

http://www.ucc.org/about-us/

The Dixiecrat movement in the fortyies and fifties was a racist effort by the Republican party to get the Southern Democrats into the Republican fold based on segregations and anti-black sentiments.
 
Zoomie:
If that means exposing any Islamic pieces of his background....YES! EVERYTHING is FAIR GAME. Let him defend himself. I told you people, if you think Swift Boat was bad in 2004, you ain't seen NOTHING compared to what's going to surface with this communist candidate.

So even if he isn't and has never been a Muslim or a communist, you will use this anyway? At least this time more people will realize that they are lies.
 
How is the United Church of Christ related to Farrakan and His nation of Islam?

In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan which said he "truly epitomized greatness".

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's close advisor and pastor of 20 years, traveled to Libya with Farrakhan in the eighties.

Wright has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism", and that the attacks on 9/11 were a consequence of violent American policies and proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

It's no wonder the guy is "retiring" this year. He gave his last sermon on Feb. 10.
 
I just asked a question. It appears there's a double standard depending on who the left is calling racist and who they are defending. You were all over Ron Paul for the same thing you're now defending Obama for.

I DON'T see the difference between a racist endorsing Obama and a racist endorsing Paul. And the article is here ... there's nothing vague about it.

You attempted correlation to Saddam and OBL is lame.

So is the mythical "Southern strategy" known only to lefties for some reason.

I don't think I've ever defended Obama's associates. For me it's about policy. Both RP and McCain are unacceptable for different reasons. Really simple.

And calling the southern strategy mythical when every repub candidate has used it since Nixon is kind of disingenuous.
 
If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you made race the issue.

If you dress up in jihad garb in a post-9/11 world, you made race the issue (see Drudge today).

If you go to a "black power" church in Chicago that says on its website, "we proclaim our allegiance to Africa", you made race the issue.

If you're praised by Louis Farrakhan, you made the race the issue.

If you refuse to wear an American flag or sing the national anthem because of your anti-white hatred, you made race the issue.

If your wife wrote an essay at Princeton denouncing whites, you made race the issue.

If your wife declares she hates America and is only "proud" of it when they elect her husband, you made race the issue.

If you're half-white but choose to call yourself black, you made race the issue.

If your campaign supporters hang pictures of Che Guevara, you made race the issue.

If the only reason you're in the race this far is because of your race, you made race the issue.

If you got into Harvard Law because of your race, you made race the issue.

If your only published article in public life is to denounce "The Bell Curve," you made race the issue.

If you think only white Republicans can be "racist," you might just be an Obama supporter!

How many Black friends do you have?? Sounds like your the racist and one of the reasons why "race" has become such a BIG deal; we already knew it would be an issue but people like you keep it going.
 

LMFAO! Y'all never give up. Y'all really need to lay off the fearmongering. The only racism I'm seeing going on, if there's any, is within the Democrat party.

Or didn't the racial divide amongst Democrat voters draw a clear enough picture for you?
 
I don't think I've ever defended Obama's associates. For me it's about policy. Both RP and McCain are unacceptable for different reasons. Really simple.

And calling the southern strategy mythical when every repub candidate has used it since Nixon is kind of disingenuous.

You gravedigging threads too?

I call it myth because you have no actual evidence that every Republican candidate has used it since Nixon. You have a statement that Nixon used it and a bunch of the usual leftwing junk accusations.

If any party is racist, it would be the one that panders for votes with handout programs and ensuring you keep that "Southern Strategy", Republican fearmongering fresh in the minds of those minorities.

Last I checked, that would be Democrats.
 
How many Black friends do you have?? Sounds like your the racist and one of the reasons why "race" has become such a BIG deal; we already knew it would be an issue but people like you keep it going.


No, people like YOU keep it going by squealing racism at every chance. Obama can't just be a leftwingnut idiot. Oh Hell no. That's racist.

And you Obamaphiles have used the same tactic against your own if they dared support Hillary, so GMAFB.
 

Forum List

Back
Top