Originally Posted By Mr X ***Since the Republicans are the party of civil rights and freed the slaves I think we can say we have done allot more for minorities then the Dems*** What a ridiculous thing to say.
Originally Posted By Labuda "Since the Republicans are the party of civil rights and freed the slaves I think we can say we have done allot more for minorities then the Dems." <---just had her jaw hit the floor.
Originally Posted By alexbook <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/13142/onion-news-network-immigration-the-human-cost" target="_blank">http://www.hulu.com/watch/1314...man-cost</a>
Originally Posted By Donny Mr X said "What a ridiculous thing to say." but had no facts to back it up.
Originally Posted By ecdc Yes, riding on Lincoln's coattails a mere 150 years after he was elected makes perfect sense. Of course, the modern Republican party - the pen that actually is like the one operating today - has a pretty bad record of civil rights. Second, Donny is dodging the issue and playing the whack-a-mole game so common to conservatives these days. The issue is the governor's use of the term "mules" to describe an entire group of people. From this we get the completely nonsensical, "So illegal immigration is okay?" Huh? But I am glad Donny brought up slavery. I've been re-reading Battle Cry of Freedom and it is amazing how much the South sounded like the tea partiers of today. The parallels are many, so it's always interesting to watch these people, who have no grasp of history, try and use it to their advantage.
Originally Posted By Donny ecdc 1st comparing the tea party to confederates is not a sound comparison.The Tea party does not want to succeed from the union or want to enslave a group of people for cheap labor. 2nd.I will agree that most of the illegals coming across the boarder are not carrying drugs but to the ones that are mules is a good term for a person used to carry something across the desert.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ecdc 1st comparing the tea party to confederates is not a sound comparison.The Tea party does not want to succeed from the union or want to enslave a group of people for cheap labor.<< Oh sure. Any analogy breaks down at some levels. But you first mentioned the Republican party has a better track record than Democrats on Civil Rights due to emancipation. My point is that if we're going to compare groups from 150 years ago, conservatives today resemble the South far, far more than they do the Republicans under Lincoln. The rhetoric is surprisingly similar on many levels, the harping on states' rights and the accusations of taking their freedom by trying to better others, etc. I don't know that I'll have the time to find it, but a few times I recall reading and being blown away at the similar mentality of the South to modern-day conservatives. And of course, the very idea of conservatism is to "conserve" the status quo, something Lincoln didn't do by a long shot. Often lost in the focus on the carnage of war is that the Republican congress under Lincoln, without Southern opposition, passed the most sweeping legislative changes in American history, often very progressive legislation. So the only thing the modern conservative movement and Lincoln's Republican party have in common is the name. The ideologies are practically polar opposites.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Since the Republicans are the party of civil rights and freed the slaves I think we can say we have done allot more for minorities then the Dems.> Please, let's look at some more US history, shall we? The Democratic Party predates the Republican party, both of which were very different in the 19th century from the parties that have the names now. Andrew Jackson was the first president from the Dem. party. He was a populist southerner, and those two words - populist and southern - were the strength of that party for a long time. The Republican party was formed in the years leading up to the Civil War, and included people who either did not want slavery extended to new states, or wanted it abolished entirely. Not surprisingly, this party was anathema to white southerners for many years after the war. It's hard for people without a grounding in history to grasp sometimes, but flash forward to the 20th century, and there used to be a LOT of conservative Democrats (mostly southern) and also a lot of liberal Republicans (most northern, especially in New England). The famous "New Deal Coalition" consisted of northern liberals, black voters where they COULD vote, recent immigrants, and white southerners - the glue holding them together being economic populism and the New Deal. Since FDR put a lot of poor white southerners to work during the Depression, they were happy to vote for him. Such a coalition of liberal northerners and (otherwise) conservative southerners seems odd today, but it held for decades. From 1932 to 1968, the only two Presidential elections the Republicans won were Ike's two terms. The first major strain in the coalition came in 1948 when Truman integrated the armed forces. In response, Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat like nearly all white southerners, ran on a third party (often called the "Dixiecrats"), won several southern states outright and nearly cost Truman the election. White southerners felt betrayed that the Democrat Truman would do that. Still, Truman won, the country didn't crumble, and segregation was still alive and well in southern life everywhere BUT the armed forces. Then through the 50's and early 60's, what we saw was liberals of BOTH parties (remember, "conservative Democrat" and "liberal Republican" were not oxymorons then) supporting the nascent civil rights movement, and conservatives of BOTH parties opposed. Conservatives today like to cite Democrats who opposed it and Republicans who supported it as "proof" that (as Donny put it) "the Republicans are the party of civil rights" but that's disingenuous or simply ignorant of history. Because it was liberals who supported civil rights and conservatives who opposed it, regardless of party, make no mistake. It was when LBJ signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts in the 60's that the party shift really began to happen. After all, those things affected day to day life for white conservatives, and they couldn't stand it. LBJ predicted when he signed them that within a generation, the Democrats would lose the south, and of course he was right. Over the next generation you saw pols like Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and scads of others who had been Democrats switch to being Republicans. Countless rank and file white southerners did the same. It was a slow migration, but a massive one. In 1968, Nixon concocted his famous "Southern Strategy," which was essentially winking and nodding at conservative white southerners and saying "I'm with you." Coded appeals to racism began being seen. (Blatant appeals used to be the norm, but by '68 you at least had to code them.) It worked. George Wallace, like Thurmond before him, ran on a third party because the Democratic nominee was "too liberal" (meaning, too supportive of civil rights), and took several southern states, but Nixon won most of the ones he didn't. In 1980, Ronald Reagan chose to kick off his campaign from Philadelphia, Mississippi. Why? Check out where presidential candidates officially announce their candidacies. It's always some place symbolic, or some place important to them personally (typically their home town). Reagan had no connection to Philadelphia, MS. But oh boy was is symbolic. Philadelphia, MS was famous for one thing and one thing only: the murder of 3 civil rights workers just 15 years earlier (later dramatized in Mississippi Burning). There was absolutely no reason for Reagan to kick off his campaign from there EXCEPT as another nod and wink to white racists: "I'm with you." And it worked. Running against a southerner (Carter) who had carried much of the south in 1976, Reagan picked off many southern states in 1980. And the migration of southern conservatives to the Republican party continued and was mostly complete by the end of the 80's. So it's important to distinguish between conservatism and the Republican party of the 19th century, or even most of the 20th century. They seem to be synonymous now, but that was NOT always the case. It was conservatives of both parties who opposed civil rights, and liberals of both parties who supported them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Excellent post! And just in case you think Dabob's just making things up, here's an article from five years ago, when the then head of the RNC said what the GOP had done to capitalize on racial division was wrong. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...342.html</a>
Originally Posted By Donny I guess I will have to trust your knowledge of winking and nodding to know how racist Republicans are or maybe your dead wrong.I will go with the ladder.It's kinda like when when people want me to believe Obama is a Muslim I ignore that as well.Oh and FYI May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Since the Republicans are the party of civil rights and freed the slaves I think we can say we have done allot more for minorities then the Dems.< By your logic... I killed a mosquito with malaria therefore I have done a lot more for malaria victims than most people. >The Tea party does not want to succeed from the union or want to enslave a group of people for cheap labor.< No, but many members have suggested a VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT. Also is Perry a teabagger? I'm going to assume yes, and he does want to secede (cuz that's how it's spelled) >can you share with me 5 things Republicans have done to a specific race of people to make them raciest ??< Do you really want to play this game with me? I don't think so, but here....wait a minute.. specific race? So you are now implying if it's racist to several races it's ok? Whatever man.. "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks" -Bill O'Reilly O'Reilly wants to profile all muslims between 16-45 James L. Hart was picked by the republican party to run for the HoR for Tennessee in 2004 he believes in eugenics and he vowed "if elected to work toward keeping 'less favored races' from reproducing or immigrating to the United States." At a Tea Party rally Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (who is black) was spat upon and called a "n**ger" And let us finish with Good old Rush Limbaugh “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.” [To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” “We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.” “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.” “You’re a foreigner. You shut your mouth or you get out.” “Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.”
Originally Posted By Donny September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
Originally Posted By Donny Boy it sure seems like in some of our history's biggest Racist moments Democrats were against helping minorities
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Boy it sure seems like in some of our history's biggest Racist moments Democrats were against helping minorities< Once again I could pull up articles explaining all the good they have done as well, but I won't. You seem to be avoiding my HUEG post where I put holes in your claims.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I guess I will have to trust your knowledge of winking and nodding to know how racist Republicans are or maybe your dead wrong.I will go with the ladder.> It's "latter." But no, I'm not dead wrong. Everything I said in my post is correct and verifiable. Sorry. <It's kinda like when when people want me to believe Obama is a Muslim I ignore that as well.> And where do we see "Obama is a Muslim" signs? Oh yeah, tea party rallies. <Oh and FYI May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats> Did you even read my post? Ike was a moderate Republican at a time when that was VERY common, and liberal Republicans were fairly common as well. And those 18 Senate Democrats were conservative southern Democrats, in an echo the longest filibuster in history against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 by... wait for it... Strom Thurmond. That guy I mentioned in my post who was a CONSERVATIVE southern Democrat who later migrated to (today's) Republican party, like so many others. Forget party. It's conservatives that opposed civil rights, and liberals who backed it. You don't want to respond to that, because it's simply a fact you can't handle.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 Stop bringing up facts! It's unfair! Also still waiting on response to my post
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And those 18 Senate Democrats were conservative southern Democrats, in an echo the longest filibuster in history against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 by... wait for it... Strom Thurmond. That guy I mentioned in my post who was a CONSERVATIVE southern Democrat who later migrated to (today's) Republican party, like so many others.>> That is the single biggest issue in this thread that Donny is ignoring. The "Dixiecrats" of the South during the Civil Rights era of the fifties and sixties became the conservative Republicans of today. The two parties changed their core beliefs, decades ago. Anyone with a modest understanding of American political history would know that, Donny. Conservative Republicans of the past two decades have been the torch bearers of the racist segregationist traditions that the Southern Democrats once held.
