<p>Republicans are not Nazi's... Nazi was (still may be) a political party that was seperate of republicans... Not sure why but a lot of people like to lump us all together. It depends where you are in California as to what political party is dominate... In most of Los Angeles it is very liberal. However I live just north of the city (about 30 minutes out of downtown) and it's exceptionally conservative.</p>
<p>fyi sempitern, if you havent found any racist modern democrats, you arent looking too hard. its not usually the blatant KKK style racism, but i have found that the insidious type of "looking down the nose" style racism can be found quite easily among "modern" democrats.</p>
<p>a very sage comment was made by Bill Maher regarding republicans and the convention in 2000</p>
<p>he said, the last time they had so may african americans on stage, they were selling them!</p>
<p>I think the modern republican party is comprised of a core southern racist element with some moderates here and there to provide window dressing to the party to make sure that its overt racism doesnt turn away suburban voters</p>
<p>I once read an article from a black republican delegate to the convention. He remarked that even though he was clearly identified as a delegate. He was repeatedly told racist comments.... Fetch my bag boy etc etc/ He was also emailed an essay that stated how the country would have been better had the south won the war. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. He left the republican party.</p>
<p>Take a look at republican politicians... if you can name me ONE black republican congressman elected recently(other than J.C. Watts, but he didnt join the congressional black caucus) then I will lay my argument to rest.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did anyone see Bob Jones on the OC?</p>
<p>How awesome was that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>haha it was pretty awesome</p>
<p>(trying to sway the thread away from YET ANOTHER heated debate about race and politics... come on guys)</p>
<p>sempitern, what the hell do you know about the "modern republican pary?" Do you have anything other than one lame anecdote to back up your generalization about a group which, last time I checked, makes up the majority of American voters? The Demorcratic party has a much more racist history than the Republican party, especially when it comes to slavery and the Civil War. Bill Maher can eat his words because he is a complete moron. Guess which is the only party to have a congressman who was a former KKK member?</p>
<p>If the Republicans are such racists, name some legislation or something else tangible that they've done that's racist. Also, what have the Democrats done for blacks lately? Or any other race for that matter. </p>
<p>northrams, you're completely right. What's affirmative action but saying that blacks and latinos can't be expected to compete at the same level as whites or east asians and that colleges should lower their standards for them?</p>
<p>"The Demorcratic party has a much more racist history than the Republican party, especially when it comes to slavery and the Civil War."</p>
<p>no it dosent when you consider party realignments that have occured since then</p>
<p>Lincoln's republican party comprised of northern liberals is the basis of the modern democratic party</p>
<p>"Also, what have the Democrats done for blacks lately? Or any other race for that matter. "</p>
<p>uh.... HELLOOOOOO Civil Rights act</p>
<p>MY POINT IS THAT EVER SINCE NIXON's SOUTHERN STRATEGY, SOUTHERN RACISTS HAVE PROVIDED A SOLID CORE BASE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.</p>
<p>check your facts, the democratic and republican parties essentially swapped places during the time frame in which you accuse modern democrats of slaveholding (which, by the way should be a non issue considering dems and reps alike are deeply saddened by that period in history)
with industrialization, the democrats have traditionally consisted of the laboring class and with urbanization those who favored big government needed labor rights while the more agrarian sector of society who were formerly dems became republicans who didn't favor gov't interference, the label isn't what matters, just the agenda
either way this is inconsequential for the aforementioned reason, the thing I find ignorant and offensive about your post is the insinuation that dems are somehow racists who do nothing for minorities. I don't consider the civil rights legislation pushed through primarily by dem LBJ among others to be 'not doing anything.' besides are you indicating that 89% of black voters who went for Kerry just don't know what's good for them? or maybe it could have something to do with the enthusiastic and extensive campaign of African-American voter disenfranchisement in which republicans engaged during the last election.</p>
<p>"Do you have anything other than one lame anecdote to back up your generalization about a group which, last time I checked, makes up the majority of American voters?"</p>
<p>ok, heres one more anecdote</p>
<p>just because we consider ourselves an advanced nation does not mean we cannot have a racist bigot majority</p>
<p>Hitler was democratically elected. He then proceeded to dismantle the democratic government.</p>
<p>Does that remind you of anything else recently</p>
<p>Bush was democratically{not even this when you take into consideration vote fraud, judicial activism(Gore v. Bush) and Katherine Harris] he[with the help of sensebrenner, delay, frist and the wacko evangelicals] then [so far has tried] proceeded to dismantle the democratic government</p>
<p>this is apparent in:</p>
<p>Senate Rule Changes
Trying to Split up the 9th district
trying to bully judges, 75% of whom were appointed by republicans and 7/9 supreme court judges were appointed by republicans
trying to create a inspector general of the judiciary which would fund certain courts and not fund other courts based on the decisions made(this was proposed by sensenbrenner)</p>
<p>as yes.... bush is a FASCIST. Namely, that he believes in the Corporate state. I don't consider him to be racist to the level of Hitler. but technically bush IS a fascist</p>
<p>here is the definition</p>
<p>"The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that</p>
<p>"exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
engages in severe economic and social regimentation
engages in corporatism
implements totalitarianism
"</p>
<p>from Wikipedia</p>
<p>the above describes bush to a T</p>
<p>Civil rights was the work of Democrats?</p>
<p>Really? so it must have been a republican governor standing in the door (and forcing in the national guard) to the registrar at the U of Alabama as the first blacks tried to register, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a Republican city council in Montgomery that antagonized MLK, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a police chief who later ran as a Republican for office that sicked the dogs on children in Montgomery, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a Republican mayor of Little Rock that was practically encouraging violence in protest, right?</p>
<p>I must have been grossly misinformed!</p>
<p>ohh, no - wait</p>
<p>
[quote]
judicial activism(Gore v. Bush)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I love it when Democrats cry judicial activism. It's just mind boggling coming from people who cheered as a state judicial panel recently found a guarantee to gay marriage in a 200 year old constitution personally penned by John Adams.</p>
<p>"Civil rights? Really so it must have been a republican standing in the door to the registrar at the U of Alabama as the first blacks tried to register, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a Republican city council in Montgomery that antagonized MLK, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a police chief who later ran as a Republican for office that sicked the dogs on children in Montgomery, right?</p>
<p>It must have been a Republican mayor of Little Rock that was practically encouraging violence in protest, right?</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>you are describing DIXICRATS, the last vestige of Old Southern Democrats who bolted the party in the 1960's following civil rights legislation.</p>
<p>George Wallace and the American Independent Party splintered some dixicrats off and Nixon picked up the rest.</p>
<p>ever since the 1960's those southern racists have become republican
why do you not acknowledge this?</p>
<p>heck, even Gingrich acknowledges this when he says the "liberal wing of the democratic party was responsible for civil rights legislation" the conservative democrats in the south all became republican. jeez. how many times do I have to say this before people get it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
George Wallace and the American Independent Party splintered some dixicrats off and Nixon picked up the rest.</p>
<p>ever since the 1960's those southern racists have become republican
why do you not acknowledge this
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm...Wallace was Democratic governor of Alabama until 1987. Not exactly ancient history. He "splintered" briefly and went right back - to the Democrats.</p>
<p>...but I'm sure the Democratic party has completely "realigned" its 200 year racist history in the past 15 years. If you say so!</p>
<p>sometimes those old dinosaurs take a long time to vanish</p>
<p>heck
zell miller is officially a democrat even though he caucuses with the republicans</p>
<p>there have been many realignments, not just the dealignment of the 1960's</p>
<p>sempitern is right...ever since Nixon, southern voters have aligned themselves with the Republican party due to their emphasis on "family values," and the "Christian way."....and opposition to civil rights reforms....though...they vote against their economic interests....in the modern age, those who vote Republican due to the "inferiority complex" are just wasting a vote against their own economic interests...civil rights is embedded in to the American system of government</p>
<p>yeah, the right wing's monopolization of morality and religion started in full swing with Reagan's "moral majority" and has yet to cease, I am tired of "reactive" voters who vote on so called "moral" issues I don't mean to be repititive, but come on how moral is the abolishment of social welfare programs, war, exploitation of the environment for financial gain, blood for oil, or lying to the American electorate? either way I don't understand religious zealots who pray for peace yet endorse war</p>
<p>Of course Sempitern is right on some overall demographic shifts, but by-and-large the actual racist politicians didn't pack up their bags and jump the fence like he wants to suggest. They gradually died out - the number of Republicans running on a a racist agenda in this day in age is the same as the dems - 0.</p>
<p>He also wants to make it a lot more cut and dry than it actually was.</p>
<p>
[quote]
moral" issues I don't mean to be repititive, but come on how moral is the abolishment of social welfare programs, war
[/quote]
Very moral. The abolishment of things like the super-progressive taxes (60% income tax for well-to-do Americans) and things like affirmative action would ethically be a great leap forward for this country. Even things like Wellfare can be considered bad (even if we could afford a wellfare state - we can't) because of the effect it has on society. In the 1950's the poor was a working poor. They were people that a young person could still be proud of for going in, doing his job, and doing it well. Now we don't have the working poor we have the "jobless". They don't work and collect handouts from the government. While bumming around all day they often get involved in drugs etc; not exactly role-models for the next generation (or much encouragement for the next generation to get an education etc).</p>
<p>Why should someone who has worked hard all his life be forced to support these bums?</p>
<p>
[quote]
exploitation of the environment for financial gain blood for oil, or lying to the American electorate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Weight your words much?</p>
<p>"Now we don't have the working poor we have the "jobless". They don't work and collect handouts from the government. While bumming around all day they often get involved in drugs etc"
um right, every poor person is a lazy crack whore. It couldn't be that the economy forces many to live well under or at the already meager "living wage." (80% of welfare recipients are in some way employed, and no this does not include drug dealing) What we do to solve poverty reveals the kind of nation we want to be. There have always been "haves" and "have-nots." Darwinism and laissez-faire economics will always collid with social justice. I don't know how you justify your own sense of entitlement, but hope to god that when our generation's social security runs out you won't need to live out your days as an underappreciated elderly WalMart greeter in Idaho.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What we do to solve poverty reveals the kind of nation we want to be. There have always been "haves" and "have-nots." Darwinism and laissez-faire economics will always collid with social justice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The "reveals who we are" thing is the biggest crock I've ever heard. It's rivaled only by the idea of "social justice" -</p>
<p>Social justice is wrong. I don't "owe" a poor person anything. You don't owe a poor person anything. We certainly shouldn't owe 60+% of our lifetime earnings. The most ethical thing to do sometimes may be to give charity, but the fact remains that the person begging for change doesn't have a right to your money.</p>
<p>What would you think if someone walked up to you at random and said, "I'm poor so you owe me 10$?" It may make you a better person if you do it, but you certainly don't owe it to him.</p>
<p>...but that's exactly what the goverment does - which is why "social justice" should be voluntary and privitized.</p>
<p>Watch my rebuttal to the following points</p>
<p>"Reagan's "moral majority""</p>
<p>actually, it was Jimmy Carter who invigorated the evangelicals for social justice. He also ran as a "common man" just like Dubya, though Dubya uses the evangelicals to convince people to vote against their interests(ie, the interests of uber-rich people) I believe if democrats want a return to power, lets harness theology, there is much more in there to support our cause than theirs! for example, the new testament has 18,000 references to helping the poor but only a handful against gay marriage</p>
<p>"the number of Republicans running on a a racist agenda in this day in age is the same as the dems "</p>
<p>actually, with the redistricting and the creation of majority-minority districts(which are beneficial to republicans in the south because they lump minorities into districts and give republicans safer margins in neighboring districts, this is called "packing", though Delay used "cracking" in TRMPAC, but thats a whole different issue</p>
<p>"The abolishment of things like the super-progressive taxes (60% income tax for well-to-do Americans) and things like affirmative action would ethically be a great leap forward for this country."</p>
<p>60% income tax hasnt existed in over 25 years</p>
<p>Democrats are more fiscally responsible and socially conscious than republicans.... here's why.</p>
<p>Republican created subsidies by increased pork barrel defense spending and tax cuts for the aristocrats have created more deficits than... are you ready for this!</p>
<p>Great Society
WWII
New Deal
Vietnam
Korea</p>
<p>COMBINED</p>
<p>and each republican president has increased the deficit more than his predecessor. The last time we had a surplus was when a Dem was in office.</p>
<p>Also, even with all the increased defense and domestic pork barrel spending our tax rates as a percentage of GDP have fallen to 1959 levels.</p>
<p>Ordinarily, that should have greatly stimulated the economy, but the problem is the tax cuts were given overwhelmingly to the top 1% of income earners, effectively shifting the tax burden to the middle class.
Heck, Kerry even proposed tax vouchers for college tuition!</p>
<p>"Now we don't have the working poor we have the "jobless". They don't work and collect handouts from the government. While bumming around all day they often get involved in drugs etc"</p>
<p>this is the model that the republican party has been so successful in creating in order to advance their trickle down theories and to rid themselves of the guilt of throwing people on the street.</p>
<p>There is a big reason why we have the "working poor" simple, the way poverty is calculated does not reflect the current economy. In the 1950's Food was the largest part of a household budget, thus the poverty line was calculated at the absolute minimum level at which a person could maintain a household and eat. Nowadays, the largest portion of the budget is housing, and many poor people have been priced out of the housing market. There is no way that a person can support a family by working at the minimum wage. It is IMPOSSIBLE. That'swhy you have the working poor, those who work full time(for the rent money) but have to get food stamps in order to eat. What sort of society are we living in where people who work all day can't afford to buy food!</p>
<p>"encouragement for the next generation to get an education etc'</p>
<p>its pretty hard to get an education when you're worrying about whether you should stay home to take care of your sick kid and whether that will get you fired. Its also pretty hard to get an education if one has to work two jobs just to make ends meet. Granted, it is theoretically possible, but very few accomplish it because the standards are set sooooooooooo high.</p>
<p>And yes, we can afford to drastically reduce poverty and increase the quality of life without crippling the economy. Look at how Canada has done it!</p>
<p>They have an almost institutional unemployment rate of 8%, 3% higher than ours, but</p>
<p>they have universal healthcare
a living wage
highly subsidized quality public education
adequate housing for the poor.</p>
<p>The US is decades behind other industrialized wealthy nations in terms of social justice and quality of life. </p>
<p>Here is my hypothesis about what happened</p>
<p>in the 1970's super rich people and other conservatives got around and started to think of ways to get their agenda accomplished. Namely, to go back to the Gilded Age in terms of economics and to the age of attila the hun in terms of social issues. </p>
<p>This is when think tanks and evanglical organizations were created. They framed issues to their advantage and set up a long term direct mail public relations campiagn</p>
<p>poor people was described as lazy alcoholic drunks
womens rights were described as "women who want to deny their husbands"</p>
<p>they took advantage of wedge issues to further their agenda. that Roe V. WAde has been a gold mine for them.</p>
<p>Here is my favorite. Family Values!
vlaues for whom, your family, Richy Rich's family whose billionaire dad can afford a new yacht now while you have to worry about finding a job etc etc</p>
<p>with the moribund democratic party, split by the vietname war and Nixon's masterful politics, republicans saw a weak point in 1980. FAced with stagflation and rising resource prices, the american people stopped caring about the common good and started listening tothe conservative depiction of poor people and liberal people as outspoken communists who are out to destroy your life.</p>
<p>Finally, who do I blame our current state of affairs on. The fat cats who got around a table in the early 1970's to discuss the best way to protect their fortunes. I know, use religion to convince people to vote against their economic best interest. In return, these fat cat aristocrats provided the seed money for Focus on the Family, Howard Jarvis Association, Heritage Foundation, etc etc.</p>
<p>"Social justice is wrong. I don't "owe" a poor person anything. You don't owe a poor person anything. We certainly shouldn't owe 60+% of our lifetime earnings"</p>
<p>60%+ hasnt happened for anyone in the last 25 years and even before then it was for approximately the 100 richest families in America</p>
<p>btw, as a conservative you should be familiar with the bible</p>
<p>"it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven"</p>
<p>why, because the rich man probably made his money exploiting the poor and paying politicians to look the other way</p>