Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 16, 2014, 11:17:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79068 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] Print
Author Topic: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.  (Read 30602 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #350 on: February 25, 2014, 02:53:40 PM »

Ted not really persuading me here  , , ,

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/24/watch-ted-nugent-takes-credit-for-getting-piers-morgans-a-thrown-out-during-cnn-interview/

Wasn't there also something he said about shooting people from a helicopter that could be interpreted as racist?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #351 on: February 25, 2014, 05:26:34 PM »

Ted not really persuading me here  , , ,

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/24/watch-ted-nugent-takes-credit-for-getting-piers-morgans-a-thrown-out-during-cnn-interview/

Wasn't there also something he said about shooting people from a helicopter that could be interpreted as racist?



The left can interpret anything as racist to smear political opponents. Having said that, he did say something pretty stupid recently.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #352 on: February 25, 2014, 08:00:11 PM »

Clearly President Obama is 100% human, and clearly Ted Nugent knows that, was angry and displeased with him, said something stupid and untrue and apologized for it, but how does calling someone a 'subhuman mongrel' qualify as 'racist'?  Seems to me it was a slur against millions of innocent canines.  A real 'subhuman' mongrel, man's best friend, does not try to take our country down.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #353 on: February 26, 2014, 01:02:23 AM »

C'mon, BO is the product of mixed race parents, and to my sense of things, "mongrel" has often been used as an out and out racist insult for such people.  Similarly there is the meme of racist heart about how many black people look like gorillas, chimpanzees, and monkeys.  I have zero sense of chimpanzee being used for fellow human beings outside of this context.

And, I don't have the quote, but there was something similarly dubious about shooting certain people from a helicopter in a manner similar to how helicopters are used for certain kinds of hunting.

I love Ted's exuberance and enthusiasm, but I really don't want to have to parse words in defense of this sort of excrement.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #354 on: February 26, 2014, 09:32:34 AM »

Okay, understood after having it explained.  If Nugent has had other episodes of race issues, then maybe this is strike three, but I have not heard of any.

It's hard for me to believe we are race sensitive about a guy who was popularly elected President of the United States - twice.  Yet any Dem commentator can look at a tea party crowd or a Republican debate and denigrate their gender or race if it looks too lilly-white or vanilla to them.  The only "white" guy I've ever seen was my grandfather in a casket.  Caucasians have pigmentation too!  The issue with this President is not his looks, his race or his heredity, it is that he is destroying the country.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3785


« Reply #355 on: February 26, 2014, 09:50:17 AM »

"The only "white" guy I've ever seen was my grandfather in a casket.  Caucasians have pigmentation too! "

Doug your right.  Blacks are brown not black.  And whites are cream not white.  wink
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #356 on: February 26, 2014, 11:41:48 AM »

Many people suspect many folks in the Tea Party to have racist inclinations. As a Jew I have seen Nazi and Aryan Brotherhood and similar literature, websites, etc.  This is pretty much the kind of place where I find "mongrel", "chimpanzees", "monkeys" and similar words used. At the very least, calling this president a "mongrel" and a "chimpanzee" walks right into that.  The kindest thing that can be said here is that it was really stupid-- as was the failure to acknowledge that these words can be seen as such.  Throw in his comment about gunning people down from helicopters (I'm vague as to what it was, but it was something along the line of people rioting for welfare checks or something like that) and reasonable people are going to be seeing a pattern.

It is a normal human thing to size people up by the kind of company they keep.  Ted can be great fun and occasionally somewhat eloquent about things we believe in, but he is now damaged goods.  Using him as a spokesman, will taint those who cite him in this way.

The undecided person coming to this conversation will be considering what Ted has to say and then the other side with say "You're listening to a racist! He called the president a mongrel and a chimpanzee."

Lots of good people are offended by the nastiness of discourse today (indeed is this not one of the memes of our side? How nasty the progressives are?)  In their eyes our using someone who talks like this loses us credibility and respect in their eyes.

This is reality.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2100


« Reply #357 on: February 26, 2014, 01:10:59 PM »

I don't know if Nugent is a racist or not, but this is not the first time there have been public utterances that led to questions:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/ted-nugent-uses-slurs-in-radio-interview-gets-kicked-off-the-air/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #358 on: February 26, 2014, 02:29:29 PM »

Too bad the article does not have the courage to actual say what the words in question were.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2100


« Reply #359 on: February 26, 2014, 02:49:13 PM »

Too bad the article does not have the courage to actual say what the words in question were.


Agreed.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #360 on: February 26, 2014, 11:10:34 PM »

Ted Nugent, 2003, Denver 103.5FM:  Nugent insisted he was trying to make the point that the offensive terms were merely words and shouldn't offend anyone.  The show's Korean producer KATHY LEE admits she wasn't personally offended. 
http://www.contactmusic.com/news-article/nugent-in-trouble-over-racial-slurs

Has anyone ever used the n-word just discussing the issue of using the n-word, intending to slur no one?  If so, did you lose your free speech rights and all credibility forever?

Nugent has used the mongrel term for white people: “So much media has lost its soul lying Saul Alinsky Joseph Geobbells freaks,” Nugent tweeted. “CNN Joseph Goebbells Saul Alinsky propaganda ministry mongrels (sic).”  http://www.thewrap.com/ted-nugent-gay-pirate-twitter-cuba

'The Wrap' writer:  "For the record: Yes, we get it — he’s being sarcastic but epic ridiculousness deserves to be recognized."

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #361 on: February 27, 2014, 01:08:35 PM »

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/11/lesbian-in-need-of-a-haircut-picks-an-all-male-muslim-barbershop-gets-the-boot.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #362 on: February 27, 2014, 04:54:41 PM »


If it was an authentic muslim barbershop, it wouldn't be her hair that was cut.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #363 on: February 27, 2014, 05:14:09 PM »

 cheesy
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #364 on: March 04, 2014, 09:18:40 AM »

http://pamelageller.com/2014/03/obama-administration-let-anti-gay-muslim-leader-u-s-fundraise-speak.html/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #365 on: March 04, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »

second post

http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=19876
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #366 on: March 05, 2014, 06:05:05 PM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24653643
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #367 on: March 06, 2014, 07:58:58 AM »

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spike-lee-sentimental-segregationists-article-1.1710867
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #368 on: March 22, 2014, 04:14:55 PM »

A week later, and liberals are still lining up to assail Paul Ryan's "racism." The episode is worth noting not because Mr. Ryan said anything wrong, but because of what it shows about the political habits of today's elected and media left.

The Wisconsin Congressman has been looking into the problem of upward economic mobility and how effective federal programs are in combatting poverty. Appearing on Bill Bennett's radio program, Mr. Ryan observed that antipoverty assistance can often create "incentives not to work and to stay where you are, that's not what we want in society. . . . There are a lot of people slipping through the cracks in America that are not reaching their potential and we as conservatives should have something to say about that."

He also mused: "We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, so there's a cultural problem that has to be dealt with."


The liberal online organ Think Progress led with the headline "Paul Ryan Blames Poverty On Lazy 'Inner City' Men," and it was off to the races. California Democrat Barbara Lee denounced his "thinly veiled racial attack," adding, "Let's be clear, when Mr. Ryan says 'inner city,' when he says 'culture,' these are simply code words for what he really means: 'black.'" Others were less charitable about his imagined neo-Confederate sympathies.

Mr. Ryan put out a statement saying he had been "inarticulate" but reiterated his point that "the predictable result" of the poverty trap for society at large has been "multi-generational poverty and little opportunity."

But don't take his word for it. "We know young black men are twice as likely as young white men to be 'disconnected'—not in school, not working. We've got to reconnect them. We've got to give more of these young men access to mentors. We've got to continue to encourage responsible fatherhood. We've got to provide more pathways to apply to college or find a job. We can keep them from falling through the cracks."

Those were the words of President Obama, speaking less than a month ago about his "My Brother's Keeper" project to help "groups who've seen fewer opportunities that have spanned generations," especially boys and young men of color. "It's going to take time. We're dealing with complicated issues that run deep in our history, run deep in our society, and are entrenched in our minds."

No less than Mr. Ryan, Mr. Obama sure sounded like he was talking about "a cultural problem." He didn't mention "inner cities," but his entire White House initiative is geared to helping young minority men, not whites. The President even concluded with an ode to self-reliance that Mr. Ryan might have considered a little too lacking in nuance: "Government cannot play the only—or even the primary—role. . . . It's ultimately going to be up to these young men and all the young men who are out there to step up and seize responsibility for their own lives."

So even though Mr. Ryan never mentioned race, liberals attacked his off-the-cuff remarks as racist while the President's moral lecture was hardly noticed. Republicans are accused of racism if they ignore the least fortunate, and now they're racist for taking poverty and its causes seriously. Unless you unreservedly favor the welfare status quo, or used to be a community organizer, the left gets you coming and going.

The attacks on Mr. Ryan are one more example of the politics of personal vilification that typifies the left these days. Its policies were supposed to reduce inequality, but instead the income gap is widening. They were supposed to lift people out of poverty, but poverty has increased.

So the last thing they can tolerate is a conservative like Mr. Ryan who is looking for better solutions and using a moral language of opportunity and upward mobility that could appeal to Americans of all incomes and backgrounds. Liberals have to smear conservatives personally because they know they're losing on the merits.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #369 on: March 24, 2014, 11:53:27 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5bA5NRoFUc
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #370 on: March 28, 2014, 10:37:02 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/27/stephen-colberts-politically-incorrect-joke-on-twitter-has-people-calling-for-his-show-to-be-cancelled/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #371 on: March 28, 2014, 10:41:17 AM »


Most Americans of asian background are too busy being successful to play the victim game.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #372 on: March 28, 2014, 10:51:44 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/27/kobe-bryant-incurs-wrath-of-the-left-over-his-comments-on-trayvon-martin-case/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #373 on: March 28, 2014, 10:55:00 AM »


Except for the fact that there are two sets of rules, he should be widely called out on it same as if it was Rush L, Hannity, Beck would be if it was one of them who said it.

That said, calling for silencing a person is anti- free speech which is what they do, not what we do.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #374 on: March 28, 2014, 11:13:07 AM »


Kobe clarified with a quote: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

What if we all just lived by THAT?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #375 on: March 28, 2014, 11:22:18 AM »


Kobe clarified with a quote: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

What if we all just lived by THAT?

No opportunity for graft, set asides and captive voting blocs.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #376 on: April 01, 2014, 10:41:03 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uPijRqYOYg
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #377 on: April 02, 2014, 10:08:14 AM »

http://www.tomkratman.com/Right20rules.html
 
1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.

 2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.

 3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.

 4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.

 5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.

 6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.

 7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)

 8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

 9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.

 10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.

 11. The “Some of my best friends” defense against a charge of racism is no defense…unless it happens to be true. Sometimes it’s best expressed to a white liberal as, “You don’t have so much as a day in uniform, do you, dipshit?”

12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.

 13. The various college and university minority “studies” programs, because they give a useless pseudo-education, and at very high cost in both money and time, are racist in their effects.

 14. Most black crime is black on black crime. It is racist in its effects to deprive the black community of the social good that comes from executing black criminals that prey on other blacks.

 15. It takes a white liberal idiot (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) not to understand the difference between casual sex with a member of another race and marrying and investing one’s entire reproductive effort in a member of another race. See, e.g., http://www.tomkratman.com/yoli.html. Dipshits.

 16. Islam is not a race. Detesting Islam is not racist. There is nothing in Islam which genetically compels either slightly tanned Palestinians or totally white English reverts to pray toward Mecca five times daily, to self-detonate in crowded squares and movie theaters, to find offense in just about everything, nor even to clitorectomize their women. Flash alert: Lysenko was wrong. Dipshits.

 17. When a liberal accuses you of racism, rejoice; it means the dipshit knows he or she is losing.

 18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)

 19. There was a conservative argument for a kind of affirmative action. Unfortunately, all the money’s already been spent on employing white liberal social workers and bureaucrats, and we’re broke now, so that ship has sailed. Again, blame dipshit white liberals.

 20. Screaming “Racism! Raaaacissssm!” on the part of a white liberal, when the matter in question has no DNA in its gene pool, no genetics in its DNA (see Rule 2, above), is the surest proof that said white liberal is genetically defective. And a dipshit. And it’s not racist to point this out.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #378 on: April 09, 2014, 02:08:23 PM »

The '77 Cents on the Dollar' Myth About Women's Pay
Once education, marital status and occupations are considered, the 'gender wage gap' all but disappears.
WSJ
By Mark J. Perry and Andrew G. Biggs
April 7, 2014 6:58 p.m. ET

April 8 is "Equal Pay Day," an annual event to raise awareness regarding the so-called gender wage gap. As President Obama said in the State of the Union address, women "still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns," a claim echoed by the National Committee on Pay Equity, the American Association of University Women and other progressive groups.

The 23% gap implies that women work an extra 68 days to earn the same pay as a man. Mr. Obama advocates allowing women to sue for wage discrimination, with employers bearing the burden of proving they did not discriminate. But the numbers bandied about to make the claim of widespread discrimination are fundamentally misleading and economically illogical.

In its annual report, "Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2012," the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that "In 2012, women who were full-time wage and salary workers had median usual weekly earnings of $691. On average in 2012, women made about 81% of the median earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers ($854)." Give or take a few percentage points, the BLS appears to support the president's claim.

But every "full-time" worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men's earnings in 2012.
Enlarge Image

Corbis

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

While the BLS reports that full-time female workers earned 81% of full-time males, that is very different than saying that women earned 81% of what men earned for doing the same jobs, while working the same hours, with the same level of risk, with the same educational background and the same years of continuous, uninterrupted work experience, and assuming no gender differences in family roles like child care. In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O'Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O'Neills conclude that, "labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all."

These gender-disparity claims are also economically illogical. If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females. Progressives assume that businesses nickel-and-dime suppliers, customers, consultants, anyone with whom they come into contact—yet ignore a great opportunity to reduce wages costs by 23%. They don't ignore the opportunity because it doesn't exist. Women are not in fact paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

Administration officials are (very) occasionally challenged on their discrimination claims. The reply is that even if lower average female pay is a result of women's choices, those choices are themselves driven by discrimination. Yet the choice of college major is quite free, and many colleges recruit women into high-paying science or math majors. Likewise, many women prefer to stay home with their children. If doing so allows their husbands to maximize their own earnings, it's not clear that the families are worse off. It makes no sense to sue employers for choices made by women years or decades earlier.

The administration's claims regarding the gender pay gap are faulty, and its proposal to make it easier for women to sue employers for equal pay would create a disincentive for firms to hire women.

Mr. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan's Flint campus. Mr. Biggs is a resident scholar at AEI.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #379 on: April 09, 2014, 05:55:44 PM »

It's my understanding that 92% of deaths in the workplace are suffered by men. It's time women share the burden, yes?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #380 on: April 09, 2014, 07:57:10 PM »

AS mentioned above:

"Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11482


« Reply #381 on: April 09, 2014, 08:58:47 PM »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/08/24/drive-for-a-living-make-sure-your-life-insurance-is-paid-up/

I was thinking about this article, missed the mention above.

Equality now!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #382 on: April 11, 2014, 10:09:03 AM »

If women are underpaid by 23% for the exact same work, why isn't the unemployment rate for women 0%?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #383 on: April 15, 2014, 09:26:26 AM »

Hank Aaron is among my heroes in sports. At least for a time, he was the all time leader in the home run of sports.  We had Harmon Killebrew, but Hank Aaron was the best.

He experienced some extreme race hatred at that time and saved the hate mail to never forget. 

Too bad that this much later he would want to want to cast aspersions on "all of the Republicans".

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/hank-aaron-likens-obama-opponents-kkk-article-1.1751113

In case Hank Aaron is reading the forum: The hate mail you received was not from 'all of us' and maybe not from any of us, and the reason we don't like Barack Obama as President is because of his policies, not his race.  If he was Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean, the opposition would be the same or worse.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29550


« Reply #384 on: April 15, 2014, 11:23:22 AM »

Hat tip to our CCP:
==================================


A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

 The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

 Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

 Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed dramatically in 150 years, but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

 Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

 Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

 Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

 Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for nearly a century.

 Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party, and its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and Republicans who sympathized with them.

 Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

 Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

 Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

 Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism.

 Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated mainly by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

 Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

 It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

 But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

 Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

 A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

 In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

 From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

 Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

 Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

 A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

 The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5512


« Reply #385 on: Today at 11:06:48 AM »

ccp: "Perhaps someone should email him (Hank Aaron) the post of the history of racism and the two major American parties on the racism board." 

Another case where emotion trumps logic in the human brain.  His adoring fans are probably majority white and possibly majority Republican.  But the vocal hatred of a few is what hits the hardest and won't let go.  Returning fire with group hate back has a very unfortunate irony to it that he does not see. The casualty rate of the First Minnesota Regiment at Gettysburg was the highest in Union Army.  Still, more ultimately died from disease than did from enemy fire.es n The casualty rate of the First Minnesota Regiment at Gettysburg was the highest in Union Army.  Still, more ultimately died from disease than did from enemy fire.

Yes, I'll bet you could trace those hate letters back to Dem voters and we can trace everything from the freeing of slaves to the passing of civil rights legislation to the Republicans, but that makes no difference.


One day early in my housing rental side business a man named Fontaine came after me with an iron pipe behind an apartment building in a tough neighborhood of south Minneapolis while he was having some kind of a mental illness episode.  He kept saying, "you don't know who I am!"  All I could draw out of him was that he was a descendant of slaves and wanted me to know that I didn't know what he had been through - as if I had oppressed him then or was oppressing him now by offering low cost housing in a free market.  If logic were applied, then I am a white Minnesotan, the free-state home of Dred Scott, where we helped elect Republican Abraham Lincoln twice and sent the first troops to the war to free the slaves.  http://sites.mnhs.org/civil-war/minnesota-and-civil-war-first-last  "The casualty rate of the First Minnesota Regiment at Gettysburg was the highest in Union Army."

I'm not expecting a thank you, but it would be nice to move someday past race to judging people by the content of their character.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!