Should Republicans Go for More Minorities?

[BlackAsCoal]

Well since your an obvious racist I see why you won't want minorities in your quest for White America. However, non-Latino whites make up 200 million of the 300 million Americans and shrinking! I voted for McCain (actually wanted Romney) and consider myself a fiscal conservative (but socially liberal). Republicans should go after Blacks and Latinos specifically in CA, the biggest state:
(1) Who is hurt most by illegal immigrations. Legal Latinos (who get lumped in with illegals to get lower pay), Blacks competing for some of the jobs illegals are taking like construction and the poor whites. The R do not go after any of these groups well!
(2) The hospitals are going under in CA and charging a ton because of illegal immigration! Again this hurts the poor black community (yes I know many aren't poor and are middle class, but the majority is poor) and poor latino communities
(3) CA as state is going bankrupt. Yes part of that can be placed in the national economy and poor state management, but prime force behind it is free healthcare, free education and free money via food stamps, welfare and section 8 to so many illegals (actually to too many people altogether, but that is another thread).
(4) Because minorities make up 100 million (1/3 of the population) and its predicted that in 2050 whites will be less than 50% of the population.

Conservative minority candidates must be competent first and foremost. Just tossing one up their because he or she is a minority is smart. There are some very good minority options: (1) Jindal -LS Governor (although I would like to see him do more before giving him the 2 thumbs up), (2) Colin Powell (don't let the Obama endorsement fool you he is very much a conservative), (3) Henry Bonilla (Former TX Mex-American House Rep - great guy), (4) There are bunch of good fiscal and immigration Cuban-American Candidate Congressman from FL.

While I agree with some of your assessment, republicans will find little success in trying to take advantage of differences or competition between African-Americans and Hispanics. The ever-growing recognition is they have much more in common than difference, and there is great advantage to co-operative politics and organization. I've lived in California and I know there are many organizations there dedicated to forming greater relationships between the groups and teach the power of cooperative politics. That power is particularly true as America gets browner.

This is not to suggest that there aren't opportunities for republicans to make inroads in minority communities, but that will only come through genuine efforts to address the needs and concerns of those communities, not through seeking advantage of conflicts.

 

[PeterS]

That's what they say.

I don't know... what, exactly, is the motivation a black person has to vote GOP? Or a Hispanic or Asian? They've got the DEMOCRATS!

That's exactly right. Now what you really have to worry about is when Whites start saying, why vote republican-we have democrats...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, you are completely wrong. Old Glory represents the blood that it took to make America a land of freedom for all our citizens. My great-grandfather fought under that flag at Fort Donaldson and Shiloh. The Confederate flag does represent slavery, for the economics that created the Civil War were all about slavery. The Southern States could not have had the class system in existance at that time without slavery.

No, the south seceded because the government was forcing tariffs on them that hurt their economy while the northern states prospered. Therefore, the Confederate flag is as much a sign of rebellion against tyranny as Old Glory, and no more represents slavery than does Old Glory. You apparently forget that when the "land of freedom for all" was founded it was only the land of freedom for white people. Slavery was as institutionalized in all the colonies when they formed the United States, as it was in the south when they formed the Confederate States.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I am sorry but you have gone out into left field, no pun intended! Most were bribed. Don't like it? Tough, because it is true and that is a fact.

The confederate flag, as you call it is not what you say it is just because you say it. It is not an insult except to people who are looking to be a victim, which the Dems are so good at pushing.

Nothing else to say about your post because it is so out in left field.

Your thoughts here may actually make sense in the insular world you seem to exist in, but in the real world it appears the rantings of a child-man.

Most were bribed? With what and who got paid? It is a mindlessly stupid thought and only meant for complete morons.

You say it's true and a fact .. prove it. .. You can't.

Bribes aren't neccessary when there are people like you on the other side.

The confederate flag is quite simply the garbage of losers. A pitiful sight in my opinion. The vestiges of horror that some southern backwoods idiots trump as some sort of "heritage." Laughable.

I live in Georgia and about the only places one sees displays of the confederate rag are in rural areas where no one else wants to live. It has been removed from the view of people with brains and relagated to pockets of the state where the neanderthals live .. a dying breed.

As southern states continue to get blacker and browner .. the day will soon come when that piece of trash will only be found in museums and in the pages of history under the title Ungodly Horror.

Nothing else to say about YOUR post other than I enjoyed responding to it .. just as I will enjoy any response you make.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

No, the south seceded because the government was forcing tariffs on them that hurt their economy while the northern states prospered. Therefore, the Confederate flag is as much a sign of rebellion against tyranny as Old Glory, and no more represents slavery than does Old Glory. You apparently forget that when the "land of freedom for all" was founded it was only the land of freedom for white people. Slavery was as institutionalized in all the colonies when they formed the United States, as it was in the south when they formed the Confederate States.

At least the Germans had the common sense and decency to rid themselves of all vestiges of their horror .. thus the swaztiga can no longer be displayed there.

Southerners .. an ever DECREASING number of southerners still cling to their horror and defeat .. pitiful and quite laughable

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At least the Germans had the common sense and decency to rid themselves of all vestiges of their horror .. thus the swaztiga can no longer be displayed there.

Southerners .. an ever DECREASING number of southerners still cling to their horror and defeat .. pitiful and quite laughable

Well I'm curious if you agree with me that the Confederate flag and Old Glory both equally represent slavery? It can't be denied that slavery was just as prominent in the founding of the United States as it was during the creation of the Confederate States. If one represents the evils of slavery then why is the other exempt?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well I'm curious if you agree with me that the Confederate flag and Old Glory both equally represent slavery? It can't be denied that slavery was just as prominent in the founding of the United States as it was during the creation of the Confederate States. If one represents the evils of slavery then why is the other exempt?

The eradiction of slavery in most of the Northern States was already a fact at the time of the Civil War. The economy of the South depended on slavery. It was kept a purposely agrarian society because slavery cannot work in an industrial setting. The North was industrial, and far more populous and wealthy than the South. Had the North been more serious about the war in the beginning it would have been over much sooner.

Old Glory was there when we started this nation out with many existing evils entrenched in our culture. It represented this nation as we eradicted many of those evils, even as we committed new ones against our Native peoples. It stood for both those who enforced the idiocies of the Jim Crow mentallity, and those that fought against it. And it represents what happened in the 20th Century, when we finally began to live up to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence. The Confederate flag stands for a period when those that tried to destroy this nation were defeated. It stands for an evil that all civilized nations have eradicted.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Well I'm curious if you agree with me that the Confederate flag and Old Glory both equally represent slavery? It can't be denied that slavery was just as prominent in the founding of the United States as it was during the creation of the Confederate States. If one represents the evils of slavery then why is the other exempt?

What Old Rocks said.

The distinction exists because the north/Old Glory recognized the evil and tried to get rid of it, while the south/confederate flag did not and determined that slavery was their God-given right.

Ironically, as christians, they were right about the christian God giving them the right to enslave.

Leviticus 25:44 (In red, directly from the lips of God) "You may take your slaves from the heathen nations around you" .. and goes on to say .. "And you may will them to your children like cattle."

I grew up wondering why God didn't know slavery was an ungodly act? .. Then I figured it out early in life ... God was not real.

 

[driveby]

what a silly, racist thing to say.

funny how it's white single women who are the most frequent users of the welfare system.

Jesus Christ your whiney, holier than thou, " you're a racist" act is quite stale and as xsited pointed out, your generalization has HUGE holes.

I know you're never one to point the finger at others for making generalizations though .......

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The eradiction of slavery in most of the Northern States was already a fact at the time of the Civil War. The economy of the South depended on slavery. It was kept a purposely agrarian society because slavery cannot work in an industrial setting. The North was industrial, and far more populous and wealthy than the South. Had the North been more serious about the war in the beginning it would have been over much sooner.

Old Glory was there when we started this nation out with many existing evils entrenched in our culture. It represented this nation as we eradicted many of those evils, even as we committed new ones against our Native peoples. It stood for both those who enforced the idiocies of the Jim Crow mentallity, and those that fought against it. And it represents what happened in the 20th Century, when we finally began to live up to the ideals in the Declaration of Independence. The Confederate flag stands for a period when those that tried to destroy this nation were defeated. It stands for an evil that all civilized nations have eradicted.

The economy of the south did not depend on slavery. Slave owners were a minority, not a majority, and they were, obviously, only the wealthiest of the south. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo, among others, has argued that by seceding the south basically made it so that slavery would no longer be profitable, because the north would no longer have to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act. Therefore slavery would have eventually phased itself out.

You're offering rationalizations for Old Glory and our society. If the Confederate flag represents slavery simply because the people that lived under that flag practiced slavery, then Old Glory deserves the same consideration.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What Old Rocks said.

The distinction exists because the north/Old Glory recognized the evil and tried to get rid of it, while the south/confederate flag did not and determined that slavery was their God-given right.

Ironically, as christians, they were right about the christian God giving them the right to enslave.

Leviticus 25:44 (In red, directly from the lips of God) "You may take your slaves from the heathen nations around you" .. and goes on to say .. "And you may will them to your children like cattle."

I grew up wondering why God didn't know slavery was an ungodly act? .. Then I figured it out early in life ... God was not real.

The north did not see slavery as evil, it was simply no longer profitable to practice it because of their becoming more industrialized. Abraham Lincoln himself stated many times that he did not support and did not believe he had the right to end slavery where it existed in the south. A Massachusetts Sergeant wrote in a letter, "if anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The north did not see slavery as evil, it was simply no longer profitable to practice it because of their becoming more industrialized. Abraham Lincoln himself stated many times that he did not support and did not believe he had the right to end slavery where it existed in the south. A Massachusetts Sergeant wrote in a letter, "if anyone thinks that this army is fighting to free the Negro... they are terribly mistaken."

The point isn't whether they saw it as "evil" or not .. the point is they recognized the need to get rid of it .. the south did not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The point isn't whether they saw it as "evil" or not .. the point is they recognized the need to get rid of it .. the south did not.

"The distinction exists because the north/Old Glory recognized the evil and tried to get rid of it"

As I said before, many economists argue that the south would have gotten rid of slavery because it simply wouldn't have been profitable any longer. Let's also not forget that there were "Slave-States" that did not leave the Union, and their slaves were not freed in the Emancipation Proclamation.

My point is that both the United States and the Confederate States came about because of their people resisting tyranny. They both also allowed slavery when they came into existence. How can we look at one as being evil for allowing slavery while giving a free pass to the other?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

"The distinction exists because the north/Old Glory recognized the evil and tried to get rid of it"

As I said before, many economists argue that the south would have gotten rid of slavery because it simply wouldn't have been profitable any longer. Let's also not forget that there were "Slave-States" that did not leave the Union, and their slaves were not freed in the Emancipation Proclamation.

My point is that both the United States and the Confederate States came about because of their people resisting tyranny. They both also allowed slavery when they came into existence. How can we look at one as being evil for allowing slavery while giving a free pass to the other?

That question is best answered by the slaves themselves who were liberated from their horror by those who carried the Old Glory. Unfortunately, blacks were destined to suffer another 100 years of maniacal tyranny and oppression in America even after they had been liberated from the horrors of slavery.

Trying to pretend the institution of slavery practiced in the south was some noble cause of resistance to tyranny and "freedom" is, respectfully, quite ridiculous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Trying to pretend the institution of slavery practiced in the south was some noble cause of resistance to tyranny and "freedom" is, respectfully, quite ridiculous.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I have never said slavery was a noble cause, it was nothing short of evil. Their resistance to tyranny came when they broke their ties to the current government that was hurting them economically.

My point, once again, is that Old Glory gets to be the standard of liberty and freedom for all, despite slavery being widespread at the founding of the United States. Yet the Confederate flag is looked at as a standard of slavery, despite the fact that the Confederates were fighting for their liberty no less than the Colonies did against Great Britain. If you condemn one, you must condemn both.

 

[Paulie]

That's not what I'm doing at all. I have never said slavery was a noble cause, it was nothing short of evil. Their resistance to tyranny came when they broke their ties to the current government that was hurting them economically.

My point, once again, is that Old Glory gets to be the standard of liberty and freedom for all, despite slavery being widespread at the founding of the United States. Yet the Confederate flag is looked at as a standard of slavery, despite the fact that the Confederates were fighting for their liberty no less than the Colonies did against Great Britain. If you condemn one, you must condemn both.

Good luck getting just about anyone to drop their patriotic barrier and recognize a double standard that exists, which might actually *gasp* belittle the image of the American flag.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good luck getting just about anyone to drop their patriotic barrier and recognize a double standard that exists, which might actually *gasp* belittle the image of the American flag.

Well, as long as my point is not lost on everybody, then I suppose I should be content.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

That's not what I'm doing at all. I have never said slavery was a noble cause, it was nothing short of evil. Their resistance to tyranny came when they broke their ties to the current government that was hurting them economically.

My point, once again, is that Old Glory gets to be the standard of liberty and freedom for all, despite slavery being widespread at the founding of the United States. Yet the Confederate flag is looked at as a standard of slavery, despite the fact that the Confederates were fighting for their liberty no less than the Colonies did against Great Britain. If you condemn one, you must condemn both.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought slavery was anything less than evil. I apologize for not being more clear.

However, neither was what the south stood for and it's history should be considered anything less than evil.

From my perspective, the Old Glory, and for the matter, American history do not represent "liberty and freedom for all." African-Americans have only been relatively free in America for 42 years after almost 400 years of existence here.

That truth and that history do not tell a tale of a land of liberty and freedom.

That being said, the south will forever remain the shitstain on American history. Those who were tortured, raped, lynched, terrorized, abused, and castrated under one of the most brutal and demonic systems known to Man, did not have the time or luxury to wait for southeners to grow up. Thankfullly, the north and people of conscience stepped in to force the south to its knees.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Perhaps I did go a bit overboard with "bringing the south to its knees" .. but germaine to the topic of this thread .. if the Republican Party has any chance of recruiting minorities, it will have to divest itself of everything confederate, including the confederate flag. No self-respecting African-American would sit through any discussion where that flag is displayed, nor would they entertain the idea there is anything noble or courageous about the wrong side of the Civil War.

Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, know the fight for the Alamo was not about "freedom" but about Texans who felt they had a right to bring slaves into what was then Mexican territory. Crockett, Bowie, Houston, and the others fought for white supremacy and slavery, not "freedom."

The Mexican government had no problem with Texans being there .. but they had serious problems with slavery.

 

[DiveCon]

Perhaps I did go a bit overboard with "bringing the south to its knees" .. but germaine to the topic of this thread .. if the Republican Party has any chance of recruiting minorities, it will have to divest itself of everything confederate, including the confederate flag. No self-respecting African-American would sit through any discussion where that flag is displayed, nor would they entertain the idea there is anything noble or courageous about the wrong side of the Civil War.

Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, know the fight for the Alamo was not about "freedom" but about Texans who felt they had a right to bring slaves into what was then Mexican territory. Crockett, Bowie, Houston, and the others fought for white supremacy and slavery, not "freedom."

The Mexican government had no problem with Texans being there .. but they had serious problems with slavery.

most of those arguing with you at this point, are NOT republicans
while i can see some of their points as being valid, i dont support the use of the confederate flag at any party functions