19 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

I've known this for most of my life. But many blacks do not. The Republican party has a long history of supporting blacks in America. From the Quakers Ideals (Not Republicans) up to Abraham Lincoln. From the civil rights movement up to abolishing Affirmative action.

Democrats believe that they have the black vote by default. Yet many black Democrats have little idea that it's the Republicans that have paved the way for them. Lincoln freed the slaves. The Republican Party was founded to counter the Democrats, who owned many slaves.

http://errvideo.com/Links/24/

Look to the 1960's, it was the southern Democrats that tried to counter the national consensus against segregation lead by Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia....

During this period, the white-dominated Democratic Party resumed political control over the South. The Republican Party—the "party of Lincoln"—which had been the party that most blacks belonged to, shrank to insignificance as black voter registration was suppressed. By the early 1900s, almost all elected officials in the South were Democrats.

Republicans are not the Wall Street Bankers, the fat cat CEO's, they are simply or used to be, people who want the best for the most people possible without heavy government influence. Free your mind people. Democrats are not for the greater good of humanity. They have little history of their compassion when southern Democratic governors orders whites to shoot fire hoses at blacks to keep them from being able to assemble peacefully as the Constitution allows.

Now here is an article written by a black man. Imagine that. Let yourself read his words free from bias or "affirmative action."

Now Read this from Deroy Murdock, a black who has chosen to bring to light the history of Democrats and Republicans regarding who has been looking out for black people in this country. Never throw a good friend too far, you never know when you may need them.

http://www.nationalr...00502180737.asp

Contemporary partisan hyperbole? Consider this 1866 comment from Governor Oliver Morton (R., Ind.), who is immortalized in the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall: "Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro school-houses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat," Morton said.

[Mathijs]

This is what I've been saying for years! Thanks Enrique!

[Pasidon]

This is what I've been saying since Dominico Del Republic! African Americans support Democrats for reasons more unknown than what Tom Hanks puts in his hair. Yet, Republicans are known through the ages, and even now as the top supporters of human rights. Only Tom Hanks will ever know why people will always forget this. But Lincoln wasn't a saint in any way... I'll say that.

[Beowulf]

And this proves what exactly? That every affiliation has racist people in it? Who the fuck cares? Next topic.
Maybe I'm just of the convention that race doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

[Pasidon]

It doesn't yet according to people, it does. They they say it doesn't. They they treat it as it does. ... People are stupid.

[Hostile]

And this proves what exactly? That every affiliation has racist people in it? Who the fuck cares? Next topic.
Maybe I'm just of the convention that race doesn't mean a goddamn thing.

Just pass over what this guy says, because it doesn't even relate to the thread. Simply look at the basic idea that there are two directions that this nation (US) can go in. I don't need to define what they are unless prompted to.

See Beowulf doesn't have the right to tell anyone here in my blog to shut up and get past it. That can be found over in The Think Tank. That's the place where people tell each other to "F" off and such.

[Pasidon]

Isn't this in the Think Tank though?

[Grimson]

Yes, yes it is.

[Ash]

Fen did make a valid point, Hostile, much as you might want to bulldoze over it.

You're doing the precise polar opposite of that Jackson fellow from the other topic, except you're doing it more subversively. You're inferring and implying that if you vote Democrat, you're a closet racist because the Republicans did the majority of racial equality work. Doesn't matter that Democrat contemporary egalitarianism is such that they permitted a half-caste senator to run for President.

Fact is, you can't really say either party is -or ever has been- better on the subject of racial equality. You know why? Because they don't spontaneously make changes to the policy. The black population was practically in open rebellion in the 50s before Eisenhower enacted changes.

But as Fen said. What difference does race even make to anything? The only time it makes any difference at all is if people let it. The correct way to deal with race is for the entire world to not officially recognise that there are different races. Whilever it still does, there will always be inequalities, or perceived inequalities, and there will always be people who take the piss because of that (I'm looking at Muslim populations in predominantly secular or Christian countries for some of the clearest-cut examples, and that doesn't make me a racist because Islam is not a race. Same as Judaism is not a race.)

[Vortigern]

Democrat and Republican are just nametags, they're completely meaningless without context. In the 1860s the Republicans were liberal and progressive. Now the Democrats have acquired those features. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether you call yourself Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green or Monster Raving Loony (does America have a joke party? Or is it just Ralph Nader?). The important thing is what beliefs you hold. Even now northern, liberal Republicans are often more centrist than southern Democrats, so the labels are still unclear. This is why America could do with more than a two-party system. Get some locals in there for local issues.

[Ash]

You mean there are other political parties in their glorified Reality TV popularity contest that they call democracy? At least Britain has the illusion of a multi-party system. The Lib Dems at least get to appear and participate in Parliament, for what ineffectuality that is.

[Grimson]

TBH, I never understood the point of a two-party system. You call that democracy?

[Allathar]

Well, anyone is free to create another party, but to get a seat the majority of the state has to vote for you. Which basically results in two parties remaining.

[Hostile]

Fen did make a valid point, Hostile, much as you might want to bulldoze over it.

You're doing the precise polar opposite of that Jackson fellow from the other topic, except you're doing it more subversively. You're inferring and implying that if you vote Democrat, you're a closet racist because the Republicans did the majority of racial equality work. Doesn't matter that Democrat contemporary egalitarianism is such that they permitted a half-caste senator to run for President.

Fact is, you can't really say either party is -or ever has been- better on the subject of racial equality. You know why? Because they don't spontaneously make changes to the policy. The black population was practically in open rebellion in the 50s before Eisenhower enacted changes.

But as Fen said. What difference does race even make to anything? The only time it makes any difference at all is if people let it. The correct way to deal with race is for the entire world to not officially recognise that there are different races. Whilever it still does, there will always be inequalities, or perceived inequalities, and there will always be people who take the piss because of that (I'm looking at Muslim populations in predominantly secular or Christian countries for some of the clearest-cut examples, and that doesn't make me a racist because Islam is not a race. Same as Judaism is not a race.)

I bulldozed Fen because the topic of the blog is about engaging and exchanging ideas, not telling everyone to get over it and move on to the next topic.

I'm not doing the opposite of Jackson, I simply pointed out that democrats don't deserve the monopoly on the black vote. I never implied Democrats are all closeted racists. I simply pointed out that Democrats lead the charge against blacks in the south during the 1960's.

The fact that blacks relate themselves more with democrats is hard to believe. We can say that race has nothing to do with politics. But that's a holistic approach because in real life, it does, whether we like it or not.

I also never understood why most American Jews are democrats. Republicans are much more staunch supporters and defenders of the existence of Israel.

To say the correct way is for the world to not officially recognize races appears to me to be trying to solving an issue by pretending it's not there. "you can't see me because my eyes are closed" approach.

I think having additional parties is a good idea, but they tend to simply take away votes from the major party they are most like. Like Nader did to Gore in 2000. You actually end up helping the ideals you disagree most by splitting the vote of voters more inclined to agree with one another.

Oh yeah, I meant HoP not Think Tank

[Beowulf]

Then you obviously missed my point because you're too blind to see that race doesn't matter. Who the hell cares what skin color someone has? Does that actually mean anything? NO. IT MEANS FUCK ALL!

At least Ash and Vortigern got my point that "Republican" and "Democrat" are fancy labels for political ideologies. Who cares who helped whom when? That doesn't relate to now since literally nothing is the same except you still have idiots.

[Puppeteer]

The poor Liberal Democrats. I've recently studied their role with the Liberal Reforms, and my hat goes off to them - what a lovely bunch of altruists (alright there were ulterior motives as well).
This is why I don't like our current system of voting. Even Germany's hybrid system is markedly better. It's either full proportional representation, consensus with raising the importance of minorities (Germany's hybrid falls into this, I suppose) or no democracy at all. No need to keep the vested powers of politics in Parliament with more seats than they really earned with votes.

[Ash]

I think having additional parties is a good idea, but they tend to simply take away votes from the major party they are most like. Like Nader did to Gore in 2000. You actually end up helping the ideals you disagree most by splitting the vote of voters more inclined to agree with one another.

Nice argument against free elections there. Love it.

In any case, Fen is still right for the exact reason you bulldozed him; this thread is really pathetic and pointless. In fact, it's basically just an unnecessary and stupid dredge into history in order to slime the party you don't like and make them sound like bad guys. As I say, you did what a reverse-Jackson, just subtler. "You aren't black if you don't vote for Obama" vs "You support racism if you vote Democrat."

Either way, it's still low and objectionable. What sort of discussion exactly did you hope to stimulate by posting this history lesson? How about I make a thread saying "Winston Churchill's social policies were similar those of the government he was at war with. So long as they didn't talk about Jews he'd have got on with Hitler quite famously." There can be no real opposition to these assertions, because it's true. The only real responses anyone can say are "Wow. Thanks for those useless titbits of information. My life is enriched." or they might read between the lines and see a motive behind your bothering to do so.

Your facts might be true, and the fact the blacks and the jews vote democrat might also be true. But that just goes to prove the point you're arguing against:

The fact that blacks relate themselves more with democrats is hard to believe. We can say that race has nothing to do with politics. But that's a holistic approach because in real life, it does, whether we like it or not.

Clearly, those people are not burdened so much by historical grudges and see something beyond the fact that the civil rights movement happened under a republican president and instead look more at policies?

To say the correct way is for the world to not officially recognize races appears to me to be trying to solving an issue by pretending it's not there. "you can't see me because my eyes are closed" approach.

INCORRECT. To recognise the concept of skin colour = race is to recognise them as separate groups of individuals. This invariably leads to the in-group-out-group concept. Through equal opportunities forms governments inadvertently acknowledge the concept that one group of people are 'different' from another. This perpetuates racial prejudice, very subtly.

The Nazis used it in their gestapo interrogations to discover the location of jews or jew-harbourers. They subtly forced them to acknowledge the jews as different from them.

Remove the concept of race, and you immediately remove a label with which people can be branded, and a source of prejudice.

And before you get into a reductio ad absurdum by saying we should remove any possible labels like 'policeman' or gender, fuck off, because that's not what I'm saying at all (I know you were thinking it). The concept of race is not only outmoded, it is also unnecessary. By accepting that people with white skin are different from people with brown skin (by labelling them as white or black), you acknowledge that that is an important difference. Whether someone is a man or a woman is important for a number of reasons, not least so you can deduce who to fornicate with.

Additionally, to call it 'race' is a misnomer anyway. We are all one race. We're all genetically compatible. So to even acknowledge a difference based on the colour of skin is nonsense.

[duke_Qa]

As far as I recall, the Republicans and Democrats have been skipping over each other now and then during reforms and modernization, leaving one with more conservative politics than the other.

Right now the democrats have the role of liberals, and republicans have the role of being conservative and strange. In fact, they seem to relish the chance to seem as crazy as possible, even though the election might have been a warning that more moderate topics would have been more welcome.



Anyway, even though the republicans might have been a major cause of the release of the black slaves in America, does that mean that the blacks of today owes the Republicans a "freedom debt"?

"EY, you bastards! don't you remember the republicans were the ones who set you FREE!? and now its time to PAY UP and vote for PALIN!!!"

It's like Soviet Russia should have complained after ww2. "EY! we had 75% of the military and civilian casualties during WW2! We bled for your freedom, NOW CONVERT TO COMMUNISM!!" Then again, I think they might have said that (and done it) indirectly

[Pasidon]

They'll swap ideals until they figure out both ideals stink.

Bah... the posts here keep getting longer...

[Bart]

Who cares what somebody or some party was or did? It's about what they are and do