Didn't figure this Reid story would have legs

The racists are still in both parties but the sinister ones dominate the Democrat party. The have enslaved the blacks, esp. the inner city blacks and have done a bang up job of it for the last 50 years.

Plenty of blacks agree and Obama will be their savior because he is waking them up to politics. No longer will the politics of race be the opiate of blacks. Soon the debate will focus on the ideological differences between the parties and the failure of the Democrats to help anyone with their handouts. Real opportunity lies with the Republicans.

You can say it all you want, Mike, but that doesn't make it true.

The racists were Dixiecrats -- they even had an explicitly segregationist platform -- until the Dixiecrats could no longer stop civil rights legislation. Until then, there simply was no GOP in the South. Once the civil rights dam broke, it was curtains for the Dixiecrats.

After the Dixiecrats' demise, the Republicans absorbed the segregationists and racists and they remain there to this day. All the proof you need are photographs of the conventions last year. One party is a cross-section of America, the other is old and very white.

I'm not saying every Republican is a racist. I am saying every racist is a Republican.

stockingfull wrote:I'm not saying every Republican is a racist. I am saying every racist is a Republican.

That's without a doubt one of the most ignorant statements you've ever made on this forum and that's saying something.

I stand by the statement.

You may not like it but it's a fact.

Those of you who take offense should direct your energies toward fixing it, instead of trying to deny it.

stockingfull wrote:I stand by the statement.

You may not like it but it's a fact.

Those of you who take offense should direct your energies toward fixing it, instead of trying to deny it.

The only fact in these last few posts is your intention to offend.

stockingfull wrote:
I'm not saying every Republican is a racist. I am saying every racist is a Republican.

I agree.

Oh...and by the way...I'm not saying every low life scum sucker is a lawyer.....well, you get the idea.

Now this is racism "straight up".

stockingfull wrote:The racists were Dixiecrats ...

and the Dixiecrats were racist Democrats from the South....hence the name.

stockingfull wrote: After the Dixiecrats' demise, the Republicans absorbed the segregationists and racists and they remain there to this day. All the proof you need are photographs of the conventions last year. One party is a cross-section of America, the other is old and very white.

The Democrats and Republicans alike saw that segregationism was a strictly southern phenomenon and saw the destructive division they would cause America. The Dixiecrats went back from whence they came, some to the Democrats and some to the Republicans. Strom was the sole party jumper among high power politicians. However, most of them came from the Democrats and soon they became relics as you say. The Democrats seized on the momentum of the Civil Rights movement and catered to the Blacks. They buried the segregationists in their own party. The Republicans continued to stand for self-reliance. Of course, Santa Claus is always a more popular character.

None of the Civil Rights legislation would have passed without the Republicans. The Democrats have lied to the people in painting Republicans as racists (with the complicity of the liberal press). You pulled out the usual party *censored* in your post which implies that if you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem. No, Jon, Democrats were the problem one hundred and fifty years ago and they remain so today. The blacks are figuring that out.

Just last night while I was channel surfing, I discovered Glenn Beck had a town hall forum of conservative blacks. It was the largest grouping I have ever seen and they cut through the Democrat crapola like a hot knife through butter. They specifically said the democrats have been using the race card as a manipulative political tool without real concern for blacks. The dems have created an unhealthy culture of dependency among blacks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4yCiRdK ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI-NfcrI ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFQqhC5d ... re=related (segment on negative effect of dems on blacks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYEEKfyF ... re=related (acorn's exploitation of blacks)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lnSjxd ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lJOIgC8 ... re=related

spc wrote:Now this is racism "straight up".

Ooooooooooooo...that man didn't pay the required homage to the Dems and then kowtow to the white gods and godesses of political correctness. They found him ungrateful of all they did for him. They didn't appreciate the fact that he thought for himself on a non-racial issue. I guess they thought he was just an uppity N...... . He's on a list somewhere now.

Get it yet Jon? Dems are toast now that Obama was elected. They made it. Now we will all get down to the real issues. Forget about the solid black democratic vote.

No, Mike, you're the one pretending not to get it, and it's not working. It's simple:

Before Civil Rights: no GOP in the South, Dixiecrats in power.

After Civil Rights: no Dixiecrats, GOP in power.

You can do the math, Mike. Really.

While we're talking about the code language of "states' rights," here's another vintage quotation from an ex-Democrat. Can you guess who it is?

I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

hmmm.....i said that last week at a local meeting.....although I think the last part was misquoted slightly......surprised to see it on the web so soon....

I don't know who said it, but taken in and of itself without any further context, I don't see how that is at all racist, racial, or even objectionable. Do you?

You have really gone off the deep end in this thread, stockingfull. You act as if there was some kind of immediate political seismic shift in the South. Fact is it took a number of years for the transition from majority Democrat to majority republican (at least at a national politics level) in the South. Arguably it just solidified in the last 10 years or so. Just as it took a number of years for the Northeast to shift from being a Republican bastion (or at least a competitive political environment) to a solid Democrat enclave. This relatively slow process of geographic political affinity shift is probably best associated not with the Republican party somehow becoming more accepting of racists or a segregationist agenda (What evidence of this do you provide? What policy proposals or actions bear this out?), but rather it is the result of the South progressively shedding its racist sentiments coupled with the Democrat party moving inexorably away from the core policy issues that they continued to believe in.

Think of it for a moment, the racist sentiments of the South were strongly associated with the North/South divide and the Civil War. The Republican party was the party of the North in that political calculus. Even after racism has met fringe belief status in the South, being a Democrat is still a culturally significant tenet and often is a strong family tradition, despite the party abandoning their non-racial policy interests long ago. Cultural and political animosity for Republicanism made calling ones self Republican an emotionally and culturally very difficult thing to do. The transition took a good deal of time and as such it is much more reasonable to look for other reasons why this political shift has occurred.

What other reasons? I'd say primarily they migrated toward the party that was for limited, constitutionally bound national government, low federal taxes, a strong military for national defense, and was until fairly recently much more isolationist than it is today. Also, as the Democrat party started to focus increasingly on urban politics and policy, implement a renewed progressivist and socialistic agenda, allied itself increasingly with unions and anti-business interests, and became more and more antagonistic toward religiously minded voters and even contemptuous of their cultural/social issues priorities, the largely rural and suburban south and midwest increasingly found a home in the Republican party. None of this is or was rooted in racism, racial politics, or some imagined shift of the party of Lincoln to being that of Bull Connor.

The shift was had to do with business friendly, tax payer friendly economic policy, the largely outdated and increasingly detrimental role of unions in modern society, the demographic shift throughout the nation from a predominantly rural population into highly concentrated urbanized populations centers, and the cultural/economic shift to people getting higher levels of education. This last one is particularly important as there has been a parallel shift during the same time period in which the political orientation of university faculties moved from center-right to the leftist dominated faculty situation seen today. This shift has also lead to a significant shift in curricula, particularly in the liberal arts departments/colleges of these universities, and has all but taken over the Residence Life and Student Government operations of most universities today. All of this having a substantial effect on media and the broader culture, particularly in urban and suburban locales.

Now you can go on claiming that "it is fact" that Republicans are the party of racism, or that all racists are all Republican (which I have to agree, was about the stupidest thing I've seen you post on this forum, ever), but it simply is not the case now and I argue it never was the case. There are and have been racists in the Republican party, no doubt. Just as there are and have been racists in the Democrat party. The parties are really big. Membership is through self-identification and not controlled in any way. The Democrat party still gets a lot of play in local and state politics in the South. Are you going to bet that there aren't *any* racists calling themselves Democrats down there? And what about the Northeast? While it isn't the standard, "I hate them n***ers," brand of racism that people usually image and which might still live in the hearts of some few people, the Northeast has always had its own brand of racist beliefs and prejudices. Some are born of the lilly-white demographics and the latent fear and dislike of the unfamiliar, others are more insidious, such as the progressivist eugenic beliefs present in the founding of Planned Parenthood and which can arguably still be found at play within it, though usually much more subtly (undercover recordings of some people at these operations over the past couple years have exposed some shockingly unsubtle racism in their mission).

That all said, I do seriously doubt that there are any nationally elected racist Republicans today. Similarly, I doubt there are any racists holding elected national office for the Democrats either. And I do not believe it would be fair to call either party (as a whole) accepting of or courting the racist vote. Sometimes racially tinged messages and adverts get used in political races from, but this activity happens on both sides. A Republican candidate might use subtle visual and auditory cues to evoke a racially based fear response in a predominantly white region/district. On the other hand a Democrat candidate might use cues to do the same thing but playing off racial fears of black or other minority voters. Both parties have been known in recent elections to play against racial/racist fears within white and black communities against hispanic opponents. These tactics are almost always restricted to state and local races, though. Sometimes they pop up in a campaign for a Senate or House seat, but more often than not they are produced by non-affiliated groups and are very quickly and forcefully disavowed. And in gaining national media attention (thank you Internet!) such despicable ads and tactics usually end up generating interest and financial support for the target of such ads, rather than help the intended candidate.

In short, you are totally off the mark. Try again.

stockingfull wrote:No, Mike, you're the one pretending not to get it, and it's not working. It's simple:

Before Civil Rights: no GOP in the South, Dixiecrats in power.

After Civil Rights: no Dixiecrats, GOP in power.

You can do the math, Mike. Really.

1960's and 70's....rust belt develops in the North. Plants move south avoiding unions and winter heating costs. So do many industrial managers, mostly GOP'ers back then. The agrarian south is transformed to industry. GOP becomes dominant there. In the north, liberals left behind in government jobs, academia, etc.

I can do the math, can you?


BTW, pvolcko, nice post... but Jon isn't going to read it.

pvoloco , your one smart cookie.