Free States vs. Slave States
Lots of Election 2004 maps have been bandied about, but this one is definitely the most disturbing. With the exception of Iowa (which went down to the wire and a definite east/west split is evident) and Indiana (a great KKK bastion in the 1920s), the free states all went for Kerry and the red states and brown states (territories open to slavery) opted for Bush.
Of course, during pre-Civil War times, Democrat and Republican allegiances were reversed, and Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. When Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he remarked that There goes the South for a generation. Well, it's two generations and counting now.
It appears that the cultural and geographical division has remained intact.
Comments
It won't work. If you really consider this significant to the 21st century America, then I'm truly sorry.
I don't understand why you guys continue this excercise in futility. I just had a nice, lengthy discussion with Trav about the equally disengenuous "Day in the Life of Joe Republican."
Are all Southerners bigots? Of course not, and anyone that would suggest so are bigots themselves.
Is there still a sizable contingent of the Bush voting electorate that hold racist views and that prejudice influences their beliefs to never cast a vote for the Democrats? Absolutely, and please don't try to tell me it doesn't exist. Even in Arizona, in the rural areas, I hear prejudice and slurs still spoken. Of course, I still hear it in the cities too, but I don't think it colors the overall political philosophy like it does for some in the southern states.
Yes, the theory that all that dwell in the red states are dumb as a box of rocks is a meritous as the notion that all that dwell in the blue states are heathen sent spawn of Satan.
These comments reflect the hate eminating from the left over their loss. The answer thanks to this crap: according to the blog site, Naum- "These two maps need no explanation." It's absolutely denigrating, insulting and frankly RACIST of any who publish this as a disturbing example of how far we've come. Good God, y'all.
First: The Missouri compromise created the slave vs free states of the west. This map, presumably 1860, doesn't mention that the New Mexico Territory was completely empty, as well as most of the western territories and those who were there, like miners, prospectors., mountain men surely couldn't afford to purchase slaves, much less take care of them. So, let's scratch off the entire western states. That should be enough to throw this shit in the can, but let's continue.
Second: Once again, the left looks through culture, and history with two dimensional partisan hate goggles to view the south. That's your problem. But if you want to open your eyes to look at other important issues:
a) strong christian support in the south. How big is the bible belt? Democrats the last 10 years are certainly no friends of strong christian voters. Issues like abortion, gay marriage (overwhelming opposition to this everywhere, mind you). Hell, Jesse Jackson, a man of the cloth no less, won't come out and acknowledge he's pro-life. Gore had to switch his ideals to win. Kerry....we all know he preaches to whomever's voting for him. This doesn't sit well with many people who just want a straight answer.
b)it would be interesting to find which blacks increased the vote for Bush. Maybe the southern black vote?
c) who in the south, where rural environs are common wants to vote for a billionaire metrosexual from Mass.? Sure, Bush is worth 50 mill., but at least he comes off as a normal guy.
d)Dems had a strong grip until after the Cold War. I'm sure the southern vote is adamant about national security. You mentioned that yourself, Naum.
Third:
1964-Barry Goldwater 6 states total (Johnson took it all)
1968- George Wallace took all the deep south
1976- Carter took all the south, Ford took California and all the west coast and several northern states.
1980- uhhh. Carter took three states. Hardly a pattern there.
1984- same
1988- Dukakis 7 states
1992-Clinton split the south
Fourth: I could go on about the relations between these "northern states" reflected in the two maps and the American Indian tribes and communities across the entire country. I could go on about how EVERYONE was a racist then, no matter what they felt obout abolition and the War. I won't because it's too dam easy.
Gee, can it be that Carter was such an abject failure that they don't trust people like Dukakis, Gore or Kerry? Can it be that the last 20 years, as Dems have preached doom and gloom while the right preaches optimism, faith and moral principles (whether they act it out is another subject).
Or perhaps Michael Moore, who sat at the table of honor at the DNC has also been a hate mongrel, turning ordinary folks into yuk yuks?
Can it be that, as I said earlier, the left turns racial issues against all whites, swearing allegiance to Jesse jackson and Al and the NAACP? And telling them all the time that they are victims in a horrible world of unmitigated racial hate?
Clinton would easily have split the south (and did), because he had a real knack for looking and acting religious, pious and understanding to their values Her was a real genius with his mouth (no pun here). Kerry is not. Neither will be Hillary.
The Cold War Truman Dems and Kennedy Dems are gone. They were strong on defense policy and strong on principles other than race baiting; abortion; tax cuts for the rich lingo. Today, the southern Dems turn to Republicans because they know how to talk to them; the Dems have spent too much time talking to blacks and still lost a sizable population to Bush.
Naum, sizable population of hicks? No, I don't agree and don't tell me you know for sure. No doubt in the south, old fart hicks still vote and their next gen kids, yes. But sizable? 60 million voted for BUSH. That's 60 million.
When will we all acknowledge that during the progressive era (see day in the Life); all Americans ignored the tragedy of Plessy V Ferguson; all of us ignored it and let it fester like a cancer for 60 years.
Make of it what YOU will, but frankly, I know it's bullshit.
And you weaken your point when you point to Zell Miller, one of the last of the segregationists, who didn't join many of his peers who hopped over to the Republican party. It's taken many years, but he's the last of the "old guard" that a good bit of folks could vote there.
And I lived in Alabama for a few years in the 80s and while I would not generalize about 100% of the population, I will say that racism was still rampant, and I heard and seen it quite frequently from "good southerners". Before I moved there I thought "Yankee" meant a cap with NY stamped on it and a uniform with pinstripes. Every day there I was reminded how I was a Yankee and how hated we were still.
Clinton was a Southern Democrat who could gain votes from both sides. Clinton, it has been reported, urged Kerry to come out strong against gay marriage and support some of those ballot initiatives, but Kerry refused to do so.
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson, you are correct… …times were different then the historical view of of slavery as a "benevolent institution" , in large part, came out of the Reconstruction times in interest of the "nation coming together". At least that's what I'm reading in **Slavery and the Making of America**, which I'm a few chapters into, and may have a different perspective after I complete.
As far as partisan hate goes, I'm just tickled that all of these sanctomonious rightists are saying how that hurt Kerry when for years all I've heard how liberalism is the equivalent to Satanism. That liberals are treasonous, Christian hating, devils…
>>Naum I'd love to continue this conversation, but I think I'll lay low until Junior gets gets bored of his childish, cowardly behavior.
This should put this whole stupid argument to rest.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has submitted his resignation to President Bush. He's ready to move on, most likely for health reasons. The rumor is that the president will nominate his replacement today. So who will it be?
The leading candidate is Larry Thompson, who served as deputy attorney general until last year and is said to be a favorite of the president's. Thompson has just landed a high-paying job with Pepsico, so it's not certain if he would accept the nomination If the nomination is offered, and if he accepts, Thompson would be the first black American to lead the justice department. So what does that have to do with anything? Plenty.
If he is the choice, expect the Democrats to go even harder on him in the confirmation hearings, and completely ignore his minority status. You see, promoting minorities to key positions is only a good thing when they're liberals. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice don't count, and neither will Larry Thompson.
Remember: black liberal Democrats are good; black Republicans are bad and not really genuine black people. Just watch.
With President Bush's convincing victory in the electoral college and his overwhelming majority win of the popular vote, that should have finally silenced the left's sour grapes over the 2000 election. You know, all that business about Bush stealing the election, and being "selected, not elected" and other such nonsense. But this year, with the Poodle conceding on November 3 and very few lawsuits filed, that should have erased all doubt, right?
Wrong. Believe it or not, the Bigfoot/UFO/Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party has been buzzing on the Internet about how President Bush "stole" the election of 2004. With George Bush's victory so convincing, what possible leg could they have to stand on?
They're complaining that George Bush won some heavily Democratic counties in Florida. Do they have any proof of fraud? Nope. They're saying that there's no way a county with Democratic registrations as high as 70% could have gone to Bush. The only problem with that theory is that it has happened before. Ronald Reagan won that same support, as did Bush's father in 1988. So there's really no surprise there.
A few Congressional Democrats have written the General Accounting Office asking for an investigation. George Bush won the election fair and square, but just as in 2000, the left can't stand the result, so they'll question the process.
After all, no one in their right mind would vote for George W. Bush, would they?
All controversy aside, Bush wins the election, but did he win because it was factually right or was it based on belief. Belief is a powerful thing. Not to be cliché, if you believe you can do anything, and that appears to be the case with the Bush supported states of the south. BUT, belief is not a substitute for knowledge, just because you Believe Gays should not be married, does not necessarily mean that this is the way it should be. Just because you believe a God would vote one way (favor of bush), does not mean that God would. I find it to be a hypocrisy that we Americans are so proud of our freedom (including freedom of religion) that we are led by individuals who have stated that they needed to motivate the 4 million Evangelicals who did not vote in 2000 to show their support for Bush showing strong support for one specific religious division. That appears to be more of a problem then anything
I didn't write that piece of shit comment about "Jews and Coloreds". Never have and never will. You can obviously tell who I am on this site. I try to argue with reason and civility. I don't use racial slurs, or prejudicial names.
If you follow some of my other comments above, you'll see what I mean.
Damn it, I knew this would happen, Naum (I know its not your fault, but I'm pissed nonetheless).
Send me a note and I will take care of it...
http://azplace.net/index.ph...
I was upset too! Don't worry the imposter hasn't been around for awhile. Naum banned him/her. You can tell from earlier posts that you are not a racists. Everyone on this board, even though there has been disagreements, has always been civil to each other.
I wonder why the imposter picked us two out? There are other conservatives.
1 Connecticut 113 Kerry
2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry
3 New Jersey 111 Kerry
4 New York 109 Kerry
5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry
6 Hawaii 106 Kerry
7 Maryland 105 Kerry
8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry
9 Illinois 104 Kerry
10 Delaware 103 Kerry
11 Minnesota 102 Kerry
12 Vermont 102 Kerry
13 Washington 102 Kerry
14 California 101 Kerry
15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
16 Maine 100 Kerry
17 Virginia 100 Bush
18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry
19 Colorado 99 Bush
20 Iowa 99 Bush
21 Michigan 99 Kerry
22 Nevada 99 Bush
23 Ohio 99 Bush
24 Oregon 99 Kerry
25 Alaska 98 Bush
26 Florida 98 Bush
27 Missouri 98 Bush
28 Kansas 96 Bush
29 Nebraska 95 Bush
30 Arizona 94 Bush
31 Indiana 94 Bush
32 Tennessee 94 Bush
33 North Carolina 93 Bush
34 West Virginia 93 Bush
35 Arkansas 92 Bush
36 Georgia 92 Bush
37 Kentucky 92 Bush
38 New Mexico 92 Bush
39 North Dakota 92 Bush
40 Texas 92 Bush
41 Alabama 90 Bush
42 Louisiana 90 Bush
43 Montana 90 Bush
44 Oklahoma 90 Bush
45 South Dakota 90 Bush
46 South Carolina 89 Bush
47 Wyoming 89 Bush
48 Idaho 87 Bush
49 Utah 87 Bush
50 Mississippi 85 Bush
BACK IT UP PROVE IT.....
LET'S SEE WHERE THESE #S CAME FROM AND HOW THEY WERE DEVISED.
# OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS WON BY BUSH
2
# BY KERRY
0
I CAN BACK THIS UP TOO IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE #S
*LOL*
Kerrysucks, I registered. No one will be able to abuse the name. Besides, since I enjoy this site, I thought what the hell? Go ahead and register; it's fun.
As for the so-called IQ results-it's been PROVEN to be a complete hoax posted by the angry left as justification for not respecting political dissent. Just look at all the crap posted in the last week. They're trying to find an answer to why Kerry lost. We're bigots, we're stupid and/or uninformed, we've no concept of true morality....
Mojo, there is no hard data for this complete crap.
Reality Rules is....well, living in some other form of it. That's the real Sad Truth, actually. The left is still in denial; thus, the new mental illness known as P.E.S.T. Good God almighty. Here's a REAL dose of REALITY people-
The election is over. Kerry lost for a host of reasons. No amount of propaganda, half-truths, hoaxes, or downright lies will change that fact.
My brother has a t-shirt he wears every so often: "A Republican is a smart Democrat." Personally, I couldn't wear it, because our father is a staunch Truman Democrat; I'm proud to say I'm like my father in so many ways-I'm just a Neocon now, insteadof a Democrat. I won't talk politics with him, though. It gets heated.
http://www.catalogueforphil...
But can we all just stop this over-analyzing of the election, please? It's bullshit and counter productive, frankly.
Let's not forget that many states had over 40% voting for Kerry and vice-versa. Are you implying (yes, you certainly are, so don't deny it) that all people in the states you listed in these questionable and shitty numbers are stupid? Hell, 85 is almost mentally retarded. What bullshit....
Likewise, my link regarding the generosity index is skewered as well. Perhaps a county by county measurment would be more prudent, but I'm sure that's too much even for the mostembittered individual.
Now, let's take a look at this 3-D map of the nationwide county results. If one forgives a few statistical and rendering mistakes, it nevertheless shows that the Dem votes were highly concentrated in key urban areas. i.e-California, most counties went for Bush.
The true blue areas appear to be extreme northeast and extreme northern counties,as well as somekey indian reservations (Bush and the Repubs should really work on the reservations in my opinion). Red counties are ALL over the map. There is no gepgraphic boundary; ergo, there is no real discrepancy in IQ by state; no REAL division in the country as suggested by analyzing 140 year old maps.
http://www.esri.com/industr...
Now, let's all breathe and look forward to a cold pint in a friendly bar this evening...and tomorrow..and the next day. Mmmmmmmm....beeeeeerrrrrrr.
The key to being "conservative" is reluctance to change long-established cultural, social, and political norms. Conservative resistance to change is not based on some irrational, homophobic, money-grubbing fear of things and people different from ourselves. The resistance to change is based on reason--namely, an understanding that things are the way they are for a purpose. Modern social institutions are the result of centuries of trial and error which have developed patterns of living that produce efficient, ordered societies largely composed of happy and productive individuals and families.
These traditions reflect an acquired recognition that life and happiness are better achieved through institutions that support liberty, community, and family. These are the foundations of prosperity and peace in the western commercial states. Partly on this understanding, Jefferson wrote, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes." Just so, centuries of valuable human experience should not be rejected lightly.
LIBBERALS GRAB ONTO EVERY "PASSING" TREND VERY EASY...."OH IT POPULAR TO WEAR HIP-HUGGERS AGAIN"....THEY GO WITH THE FLOW WHETHER THE FLOW HEADS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR NOT...CONSERVATIVES HOWEVER, MOVE AHEAD WITH ONE EYE LOOKING BACK TO WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE NOW....UNDERSTANDING THAT WITHOUT THE PAST WE WOULDNT BE WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD TODAY... YOU CAN NEVER SUCCEDE IN TOMORROW IF YOU DONT KNOW WHERE YOU WERE YESTERDAY.
It isn't pretty.
three annoying pretenses of the liberal heart.
(1) The first pretense is that most of all liberals want to help the poor. For self-critical people, this fails the laugh test. It is true that for the elderly, liberal programs have worked very well, and improved the condition of millions — except that these programs (Social Security, Medicare) are so badly designed that they are exorbitantly wasteful, and are now on a course to bankrupt the country, as the numbers of the recipient elderly grow, and those of the paying young shrink.
And consider the state of the young poor, ages 18-34, after our 40-year "war on poverty." In many ways their condition is worse than it was in 1966. Violent crime batters them three or four times harder than before. Their families are less often fully formed, and many, many more of them are growing up in single parent families than in 1966. The liberal-run public schools are sliding downwards in several dimension — good order, academic seriousness, and knowledge of our country's history and philosophy.
If the money spent on the war on poverty had been distributed directly to the poor it would have given every poor family (there are about seven million of them) something like $30,000 per year. That would have ended "poverty" as an income category, though perhaps not in its behavioral dimensions.
Do liberal programs help the poor, as Chait assumes? For the young, the evidence runs in the opposite direction.
(2) The second pretense is that the Left consists mainly of intellectuals, activists, and others who are not particularly rich, so that when liberals speak of "the rich" they may speak of them as "others," as in (with venom in the voice) "tax cuts for the rich!" As it happens, the political campaigns of the Left depend far more on high earners and big givers than the campaigns of the right. Being on the left has deeper cultural than economic roots.
Meanwhile, middle-class liberals disproportionately control the administration of government programs and private philanthropies, again spending the money of others, and not infrequently adding to the increased dependency of those they mean to be helping.
(3) The third pretense is that liberals possess a superior degree of virtue. Assuming this pretense, liberals hold conservatives to be "mean-spirited," and attribute to GWB the most contemptible vices of "any president in this century." As Democrats say, "The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans."
There is plenty of reason for strong differences in public-policy judgments. The law of unintended consequences sets up even the most rational of plans for pratfalls. A sense for "how things work" is therefore of more practical value than mere verbal fluency. Meanwhile, in matters of judgment, good people differ. So, why exactly does the Left always have to claim superior virtue?
And in what exactly does liberal virtue consist? In taxing other people, not oneself, people for whom one has contempt, in order to transfer their money to "the poor and needy." (Or, rather, only a portion of that money; don't forget the heavy administrative costs.) Liberal programs, Thomas Sowell has written, are oddly designed, feeding the horses as a way to feed the swallows.
http://www.nationalreview.c...
By Barbara Stock (10/24/03)
When you write articles that reflect your opinions and feelings and others read those words, you get some intriguing responses.
I got an encouraging note from a gentleman that was almost prophetic. “Remember there are those out there that can not stand the truth and they will attack you. You stand strong and all of us at...are with you.”
On the flip side, this came from a Canadian: “It is obvious that you, as well as a majority of Americans, need to listen, hear and learn from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, you cannot tell an idiot, he or she is an idiot because he or she is an idiot.” Had he not included the majority of my countrymen, I probably would have just deleted and moved on.
The-he/she stuff is juvenile. Stop it. I must say, our “he’s” are better looking. Even an idiot knows that.
“Americans, need to listen, hear and learn from the rest of the world.” This is a fascinating statement. I decided to take a mental cruise of the world to see what it has to offer. Who is doing so much better than we Americans that we need to listen and learn so we too can be noble and wise.
Let’s start with Africa. They should be the most advanced since that is the very cradle of mankind. Tribal warfare, mass murder by machete, entire populations starving, AIDS out of control because the majority of men refuse to use condoms and believe that raping a 4 year old virgin will cure them. Okay, let’s skip that part of Africa.
MORE @ http://www.americandaily.co...
VERY INTERESTING READ
REPS http://www.werenotsorry.com/
Neocon, I just heard about that PEW research on Rush! The Dems ran with the moral values to make excuses for the fact that it is the war and the economy was number one! They wanted to run with the "moral values" so they could bash the christians! I say let the left keep calling us stupid! We will win again in 2008! In the words of Kerry, "Bring it on!"
I am off from work today! Ya hooo! I was off yesterday too!
I love four day weekends!
EL.V PER. POP.
BUSH 286 51% 60,366,883
Kerry 252 48% 56,938,624
I WONDER WHAT THE MAP WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE IN BOTH OF CLINTONS ELECTIONS OR MAYBE REAGUNS? LETS ADD A LITTLE HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE
first American president since 1988 to win majorities in both the popular vote and the Electoral College
the first presidential candidate since 1988 to win over 50% of popular vote, the most popular votes of any presidential candidate in history, the first time ever an equal number of Republicans and Democrats voted, the first time since 1936 that has a President has been re-elected with gains for his party in the House and the Senate.
You are right about that Mojo Clinton'a highest percentage was 46%!
http://fisher.lib.virginia....
About county maps. Check this out. It shows thatstrong Bush country is in the midwest and west.
Strong Kerry support was on the coasts.
http://www.uselectionatlas....
This website, BTW is very interesting, as it shows electoral results using percentages, not just a one color system of Red and Blue:Dave Leip's Atlas of USPes. Elections-http://uselectionatlas.org/...
Just pick an election year and look at the results.
In 2004, the libers and Nader couldn't even come up with 1 percent; basically it was a two way race. Therefore, the victor HAD to get 50% or more.
What I'm surprised at is that Bush has gotten how much now...52 percent,with a total of over 60 million!! And more important, the Repubs have increased their congressional seats. This is huge! Daschle out, Repubs in! Now is the time for another revolution like the Contract with America. Now is the time, as Hugh says, to think about retaining this majority for another generation.
Can you think of any other instances in history where a man is followed blindly, nationistically, into invading other sovereign nations that pose no real threat? Like Poland maybe? History books sure as hell will not be kind to "Duh-bya", and those blind enough to follow him.
A). Allowing mass genocide. Wrong. The US has condemned the murder in Sudan as genocide, but the leftist run UN will not discuss, or even accept the truth. Why? The international leaders that many Dems are "apologizing" to don't want to strap on a pair of testes and fix the problem. We failed in Rwanda, but the whole world failed. Also Consider Bush has taken the lead in providing billions for AIDS treatment in Africa, more than France, Germany, etc. If youwant to condemn the wholesale murder in Africa, lay it on the feet of the UN. Stop blaming the US for every damned thing.
B)Wow, shall I count the tyrants and despots around the world run by fanatics? Give me a break! Bush was elected, in case you didn't notice! Besides, he's not a religious fanatic. Can you give me anyproof or facts suggesting the existence of a National Religion? I thought not. Religious fanatic. Good God Y'All.
C) Another attempt ofsubliminally sliding Hitler's slanderous name into our great Republic system of government. Won't work except for the rageblinded left. Other countries that invaded without threat? Well, I could provide a host of ancient empires and wannabee empires whodestroyed everything in their path, but that's a little burdensome.
However, to imply the US is after Iraq's oil,as I'm sure you are trying to do is just plain wrong. We invaded,as Bush has said, because the first war was never over- Saddam flaunted authority for 12 years; and we ousted the madman before he became an imminent threat.
BTW, James, Saddam was a fanatic who invaded Kuwait for non-security reasons and whose people were forced to blindly follow him. I guess just Saddam answers all your questions. Go figure.
Oh, one lastthing, Bush's test scores show he was smarter than Kerry. Go figure.
First off, I would like to say that I am not even going to try to jump into the partisan fray of post-election political discussion. I have neither the time nor energy. However, I do have time and energy to say that I read some more of Stock's article, and she greatly oversimplifies the cost of our aggressive foreign policy. When she says we will "kill them before they kill us," this is an approach born of the same mentality which caused so much anger towards the U.S. from the terrorists. It should be clear by now that despite what Bush or Kerry say in reaction to any tape of Osama bin Laden, terrorists hate us for what we do, not who we are. The terrorists are criminals and have no right to attack us the way they did, but they didn't come up with a reason out of thin air.
Secondly and more importantly, I am appalled at the portrayal of Africa in Stock's article. While some of the information is somewhat accurate, she clearly knows nothing about the continent and relies on typical American prejudices and weak information. She makes it sound as though the problems of Africans are their own fault, never realizing that this "tribal warfare" she refers to is the result of outside (read:white) influence. Africa has been ignored and manipulated by both conservative and liberal Presidential administrations. Read Bill Berkeley's "The Graves Are Not Yet Full" if you have any doubts about all of this. If you wonder why I feel this way, you should know that I lived in Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) in sub-saharan west Africa for two years. I lived in the capital city of Ouagadougou, but spent some time in a village. My father has travelled and lived there often and we have adoptive family there. One thing I can tell you the American people, conservative and liberal alike, could learn from Africans is compassion. In African culture, if you have food and you meet someone, it doesn't matter who they are, you offer your food to them. And this is on a continent of "entire populations starving"! The American people eat themselves to the point of illness, and are still nowhere near this level of humanity. This compassionate mentality governs all the aspects of African life, even though the people have so little. And don't even try to tell me that this compassion is what got the African people where they are. That is simply not true. As for American aid, the truth is that the reason many African men don't wear condoms is because they lack education. Guess how much of our Iraq budget it would take to solve most of these problems? One eighth. If George W. Bush took one eighth of the $150 billion he is spending to kill Iraqis and U.S. troops in Iraq and spent it one one West African country, the people there would worship him like the messiah. Remember, we are talking about a region with five of the poorest countries in the world. Their major problems would almost all be solved.
I am ashamed to live in a country where people like Barbara Stock understand the world so little that they write articles such as hers, and that people like you will quote them to try to prove their political points rather than even think of actually trying to understand or help these people in trouble. This demonstrates nothing but how ill-informed and utterly inhumane you all can be. I am offended and depressed your lack of cultural understanding.
Sam
They do hate us for what we do...basicly our supporet of ISRAEL. The things we do that they dont hate us for is the fact that the conflict in bosnia was basicly saving the lives of moslems. In kuwait WE do nearly 100% of the labor in the oil fields..they basicly own it...we do all the work and they get wealthy.
This statement simply shows your lack of knowledge of the HISTORY of the TERRORIST conflict. If you have any doubt that these extremists hate us simply for the fact that we are not moslem's and the fact that the GREATEST STRONGEST MOST "GIVING" NATION in history basicly founded on CHRISTIAN BELIEFS and PRINCIPALS. Women are equal all religeons are considered equal here in america and all races are equal. THAT IS WHY THEY HATE US. We represent the failure of their BELIEFS and their CULTURE.
Just because i post an article doesnt mean that i follow its beliefs or ideals....it is simply meant to offer an alternative point to some of the points offered here.
" "tribal warfare" she refers to is the result of outside (read:white) influence."
this is simply not true...for hundreds if not thousands of years the african people were "TRIBAL". Just as the native american people of America....just as the aboriginal peoples of australia... just as the egyptians greek and romans pre-history....just as the gaelic peoples before roman rule...just as the saxons....and britains...Most cultures basicly sprang from TRIBAL beginings.. their is nothing RACIST about it. The fact is that there were great cities in Africa as there were in greece Egypt Rome... etc. yet much of africa was tribal even today their are tribal chiefs just as in south america and australia...Cultures trapped in time to some extint. This whole racist view is based on half truths and a desire to cling to a belief that WHITES enslaved the aboriginal cultures of the world and used their peoples to build their power and wealth. while this may be partialy true the practice of slavery goes WAAAY back. Ancient Cultures enslaved WHOLE NATINS after MILITARY CONQUESTS. Egypt had slaves and many nations had bond servents until very recently in the historical scheme of things.....America ((WHITES)as a nation)) had slaves only for about 100 years and only then in part of the nation and it was the nation of America that went to war with itself to free those slaves. MY ANCESTORS DIED TO FREE THE SLAVES.. and some of them were slaves as well... My great grandmother was native american. the FIRST African slaves were captured by AFRICANS....and traded to AFRICANS...only later did european nations get involved in the slave trades and BUY and SELL HUMANS. The native americans were also slave traders.... amongst each other and to europeans. The railroads were built by chinese laborers who were little more than slaves.
The whole point (which you seem to have overlooked) of the article was the rest of the world wants to tell AMERICA how bad we are and how THEY KNOW A BETTER WAY and we should listen to them..when HISTORY and the FACTS of the world today show totaly the oposite is the case. That was the point of the story... that AMERICA thoght its past has been checkered in the end is the MORAL LEADER in todays world. and that before other nations get all high and mighty and condecending they should take a look at their own HISTORY and present situations and realise that although they may have been here longer than us...America is the force that changed the world for the better TODAY.
"am ashamed to live in a country where people like Barbara Stock understand the world so little that they write articles such as hers"
it is a free country and my only thought is that EVERYONE should be allowed their opinion and that NO-ONE has the right to deny others their BELIEFS as far as those beliefs dont threaten the rights and beliefs of someone else.
"demonstrates nothing but how ill-informed and utterly inhumane you all can be"
You are only as ILL-INFORMED as you allow yourself to be...you pass judgement on me and only prove the point that SOME people want to be MORALY better than others. You assume me to be full of hatred and ignorance. You do not know of my KNowledge. You do not know of my LOVE for my fellow man EVEN those who do not think and feel the way I DO. You do not know of the CHARITIES i give to my fellow man. you pass judgement and assume you stand on the moral high ground. or want to have the appearance of being MORALY superior. and you miss the whole POINT of the article.....
1. They cry for people to come together and FEED THE WORLD...yet when an ELECTION outcome happens that they dont agree with..they point out how The BLUE STATES are basicly feeding the RED STATES... and wouldnt we just hate it if they werent here. I guess its only right to feed the people who VOTE for your MAN.
2. They Cry out for RACIAL EQUALITY..... yet they are the first to cry RACISM, and assume that RACE is the key reason someone may be discriminated against.
3. They PREACH Freedom of speach...yet when infomation is revealed that may damage or refute thir position they attack the source of the information rather than confront the validity of the information.
4. They say we are all equal...yet they are the first to point out others mistakes or differences and try to cast them as LOWERING the validity of that persons education or common sence.
5. They Thrive on trying to overthrow the system without even realising that the system is that way after YEARS of trial and error and some of the mistakes they are making have been made again and again all throughout HISTORY.
Any body else got any?????
Dark age? Get a grip, people
WASHINGTON — Some of my colleagues in the pundit business have become unhinged by the election results. The always diverting Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote the other day that "the forces of darkness" are taking over the country.
"I know that many agree with that view. But before throwing yourself over the cliff, or emigrating to Sweden, consider a couple things.
George Bush was re-elected by 51 percent of the people. His first significant action following Election Day was to retain Andrew Card, a Massachusetts-based business moderate, as his chief of staff.
His second was to accept the resignation of John Ashcroft, the hero of the religious right and the favorite bogeyman of civil libertarians, as attorney general. Ashcroft's replacement, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, will receive close scrutiny from Democratic senators but almost all of them who commented said they welcomed the choice.
That's a funny way to start "another Dark Age."
Republicans hold 55 of the 100 seats in the Senate. Among them are many, including such conservatives as Pat Roberts and Thad Cochran, I would trust to defend my journalistic freedom — or Dowd's — no matter how much they disagreed with what we wrote. I can count two dozen Senate Republicans who have experienced with their own families and friends the pain of mental or physical illness, poverty, racial or sexual discrimination.
Do you think they would stand silent while a vendetta against any of those groups was carried out? "
"
http://archives.seattletime...
People like us are stupid, inhumane and bigoted; jack-booted thugs just looking for a kill.
There's a new book out called The Right Nation:
http://www.townhall.com/col...
Must read. I know I will.
THERE ARE A FEW OUT THERE WHO SEEM TO BE GETTING A CLUE AND PLACING BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS (NAMELY THEIR OWN SHOULDERS) BUT UNTIL THE REST OF THE DEM.S WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT THEIR DIVISIVE TACTICS HAVE ONLY SERVED TO DIVIDE THEIR OWN BASE AND UNITE THE RIGHTS, THEY WILL SUFFER DEFEAT AFTER DEFEAT. A HOUSE DIVIDED SHALL NOT STAND.
YOU DONT GET THAT FAR IN POLOTICS WITHOUT SOME EDUCATION AND SMARTS.
I NEVER THOUGHT KERRY WAS EVIL, JUST THOUGHT HE WASNT VERY HONEST AND WASNT VERY STRONG. HE WASNT A "GOOD MAN". I DIDNT PAINT HORNS AND A TAIL ON THE GUY. EVEN THOUGH I DID BELIEVE HE WAS SELFISH AND ELITIST.
IN THE END KERRY'S SHORTCOMINGS, THOUGH DENIED BY THE MEDIA AND THE LEFT, SHONE THROUGH THE ILLUSIONS. THE MEDIA WAS SO QUICK TO RAISE HIM UP ON A PEDISTAL THEY DIDNT REALISE THAT HIS HISTORY IN GOVERNMENT AND RADICAL MOVEMENTS WERE A CONSTANT AND EVEN THOUGH THEY TRIED TO DRUDGE "DARKNESS" UP FROM BUSH'S PAST JOHN KERRYS WAS BLATENT FOR ALL TO SEE (WHO SO CHOSE TO), AND NO SPIN COULD CHANGE THE FACTS.
IF THEY SO BELIEVE IN THE ISSUES THEY FIGHT FOR THEIR HISTORY SHOULD BACK UP THEIR WORDS. KERRYS WORDS WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE AND NO-ONE ON THE LEFT (AND NOT MANY ON THE RIGHT) CALLED HIM ON IT. IF THEY ARE LIBERAL THEY SHOULD RUN ON A LIBERAL AGENDA....NOT GO OUT HUNTING IN PHOTO OPS OR TRY TO MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT. I HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR THE GUY WHO DID THE OPEN LETTER TO THE RED STATES THAN I DID FOR KERRY, AT LEAST HE LET HIS TRUE SELF HANG OUT FOR ALL TO SEE.
I like your posts, well said! I like the "Things Liberals do and say"
The only thing I could add is how "tolerant" they seem to think they are. They think they are such compassionate, caring, loving people except if you don't agree weith them, then your stupid, uneducated, ignorant, etc.
Neocon is right, it is going to four years of HATE HATE HATE for Bush and all of us conservatives!
I wonder if they bumped into Bush in the forrest, or wherever, if they would give him their food like all the compassionate Africans do? That should be the question of the week.
I don't hate Kerrry either. I just think he sucks! LOL!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/new...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?...
http://images.ucomics.com/c...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com...
Where's the pic of the kiss for Colon Powell?
http://story.news.yahoo.com...
THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND.....
okay maybe not. *LOL*
that pic is awsome
maybe this will
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us...
Rush and Michelle Malkin have highlighted this grotesque behavior on their sites.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com...
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
and here is another link with even more examples of pure,unmitigated hate from leftist cartooners who are nothing more than goddamn morons.
http://www.democracy-projec...
I think it's safe to say that the Republican Party does not stand for racism in this country as many would imply; nor does it "eagerly" embrace the racist crowd. Racism, intolerance and hatemongering are universal, irrespective of ideology. Just ask Trent Lott, but don't bother asking Chris Dodd.
http://www.opinionjournal.c...
I especially love the section regarding the dreaded "Presidents kissing habits"
And I haven't taken Ted Rall seriously since he blasted Pat Tillman as an anti-hero.
Anyone scouring the complete media landscape can dredge up isolated occurences of racism. But, let's not examine the overall preponderance of data, and the Republican "Southern Strategy", that has been confirmed by ex-Republican campaign strategists.
>>I think it's safe to say that the Republican Party does not stand for racism in this country as many would imply; nor does it "eagerly" embrace the racist crowd. Racism, intolerance and hatemongering are universal, irrespective of ideology. Just ask Trent Lott, but don't bother asking Chris Dodd.
Look for the last few decades the democrats have been "BUYING" the black votes with promises of FREE HANDOUTS. While at the same time tearing apart the fabric of the African-American FAMILIES.....it profits young black women to have babies without being married.....they dont need a father UNCLE SAM will take care of those babies...If the BLACK MALES of this country are competing against the government who do you think will come out on top? You dont need an education.... drop out of school....we'll send you a check....hooked on drugs... we'll send you a check. I'm not saying this only affects "African-American" but many peoples of all races who live in poverty and tend to vote DEMOCRAT.
The main reason they dont vote REPUBLICAN is the devisive politics of DEMOCRATS who claim that REPUBLICANS are all RACIST and RICH and out to take your GOVERNMENT CHECK!
Looks like you're the racist to me.
PROMINENT BLACK LEADERS SUCH AS JESSIE JACKSON SUGGETED DURING KERRY'S CAMPEIGN THAT HE WASNT OFFERING ENOUGH TO THE BLACK VOTERS. WHAT DOES THAT SOUND LIKE TO YOU.
OOOOO I AM A RACIST.... OOOOO CALL ME A NAME.... HURT MY FEELINGS. YOU PROVE MY POINT.
Case in point: in 2000, NPR interviewed the head of the Texas Chapter of NAACP. He was explaining his opposition to Bushs' plan for privatization of Social Security. His main reason for opposition?
He felt that black recipients wouldn't spend the privatized funds wisely, thus endangering their future. Now that's racist and damn condescending to all hard working Americans to assume that blacks in general are like crazy teens who can't spend their money wisely. WTF!!!!
I for one am convinced that the NAACP wants to keep the black voter on a leash with empty promises of endless affirmative action and the unceasing diatribe Naum has highlighted (the stupid map and its obvious message).
This is not a racist statement. I want equality for all; to forget aboutcolor. I don't care that Condi is the first black woman to step into Sec of State. I don't care that Lieberman was one of the first jewish candidates to run for Pres.
But it's incredibly sad in this dayand age thatall you Dems cansay after this election is: you won because the redneck baggage in the south, and we Repubs are responsible for splitting the nation just like 1860. Bullshit, horseshit, just godddamn nonsense! Again, look at the map I posted before.
Hardly a divided nation; more like a divided coast.
http://www.esri.com/industr...
Lastly, the black vote for Republicans increased, as did the hispanic vote (though not as much as reported for hispanics).
Mondo isn't racist, I'm not racist, no more than any of you. But contrary to Naum's opinion (an excuse) the leftists on the above links ARE RACIST!!!!!
PROVE MY STATMENTS WRONG....
IS THE GOVERNMENT TEARING APART BLACK FAMILIES?
DO THE DEMOCRATS OFFER HANDOUTS AS POLICY?
DO THEY CALL REPUBLICANS RACIST?
DO THEY CLAIM THAT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM POOR PEOPLE?
AND I AM A RACIST....HA!
""It is pretty conclusive now that the Negro played a decisive role in electing the president of the United States, and maybe for the first time we can see the power of the ballot and what the ballot can do," King said in a speech delivered Dec. 30, 1960, in Chattanooga, Tenn. "Now we must remind Mr. Kennedy that we helped him to get in the White House. We must remind Mr. Kennedy that we are expecting to use the whole weight of his office to remove the ugly weight of segregation from the shoulders of our nation." "
NOTICE THAT HE DIDNT SAY FROM THE BLACK PEOPLE....FROM THE NATION.
RACISM DOES NOT ONLY AFFECT "AFRICAN-AMERICANS"
RACISM AND DESCRIMINATION AND REVERSE DESCRIMINATION ARE A POISON THAT AFFECTS EVERYONE WHO COMES IN CONTACT WITH IT.
I HATE THE TERMS "AFRICAN AMERICAN" "LATIN AMERICAN" ETC. TO ME WE ARE ALL AMERICAN.
DEVISIVE ACTIONS AND IDEALS IS THE CANCER THAT IS EATING AMERICA FROM ITS CORE. REMEMBER WHEN YOU POINT A FINGER AT OTHERS THREE MORE FINGERS ARE POINTING BACK AT YOU.
AFTER ALL THESE YEARS I THINK DR. KING WOULD BE VERY DISSAPOINTED IN THE HATRED AND THE DEVISIVENESS THAT STANDS IN PLACE OF HIS LEGACY OF EQUALITY FOR ALL.
"Now Is Not the Time For National Unity!
by Nicholas von Hoffman
A little disunity, please. Let’s get divisive, gang. No national healing—raw wounds, anger and resentment. This is the moment for accusations and recriminations.
As per the routine used by countless other defeated politicians, John Kerry wrapped up a quavering call for unity and oneness inside his tardy concession speech. "In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort," quoth the fallen leader of the failed effort. Yeah, yeah, yeah, link arms with George W. Bush and … and what? Mr. Kerry’s answer was forget politics and take it up with the local divinity."
"Unity and prayer. I cannot think of a less helpful farewell sentiment to leave the many thousands of first-time Democratic volunteers with. Let’s talk about unity and prayer."
"Democratic candidates like John Kerry hide and run away from the word "liberal." Sometimes they will do it by substituting the word "progressive," but more often they do it by donning G.O.P. clothing, which does not become them. Personally, I am not above some outright lying, but only if it gets me where I want to go. If you are going to kid the public, at least win the election. Otherwise, you have your reputation as a liar and nothing to show for it. In this campaign, the candidate and the major politicians fled from being called liberals, which the Republicans did in abundance—except if the heart of the Democratic Party is not liberal, then what the hell is it? Tell us. Who are you? The anti-Bush party. We know what that gets: defeat in the Presidential campaign, losses in the Senate and the House."
"From defeat, if we can take nothing else, take disunity, division and a refusal to shut down the liberal spirit. And one more thing: The next time you hear a politician call for prayer or give a "God bless," boo!"
In other words, Racism and hatred is the only reason republicans are in power. In order for the "Compasionate" "Fair" "Tolerant" and "Inteligent" Democrats to make change they may have to take more of our FREEDOMS and our INDIVIDUAL rights to make sure that the MAJORITY of HATE-FILLED OUTDATED Conservative, dont infringe on the rights of the poor down trodden minorities. Even though DEMOCRATIC means MAJORITY RULES. So if you are a Democrat you are by definition for WHATEVER the MAJORITY decrees.
Radio Host Calls Rice 'Aunt Jemima'
Fri Nov 19,12:33 AM ET
By JAMES A. CARLSON, Associated Press Writer
MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state.
As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence
Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.
Editorial: Challenging the Racist Democrats
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 5, 2003
Everybody knows -- but no one wants to say -- that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students -- mainly African American and Hispanic -- are denied a shot at the American dream. It is the party of race preferences which separate American citizens on the basis of skin color providing privileges to a handful of ethnic and racial groups in a nation of nearly a thousand. The Democratic Party has shown that it will go to the wall to preserve the racist laws which enforce these preferences, and to defend the racist school systems that destroy the lives of millions of children every year.
On the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party has shown itself to be tongue-tied and lame-brained when it comes to opposing this racist stain on American life. Republicans rarely mention the millions of young victims claimed by the Democrats' racist school policies every year. They are too cowardly to openly challenge race preferences that constitute a true American apartheid. Consequently, for nearly a decade it has been left to one man and those he inspires to take on these injustices and he is doing so again in the upcoming California recall election.
care of
http://www.everythingiknowi...
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, white Democrats throughout the south blocked access to schools when the Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, ordered all schools integrated as per the Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education. Today it is Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy and their followers who are standing in front of the doors to Federal courts, telling minorities to "stay put" and not try to advance without the permission of white leaders.
For one hundred and fifty years Democrats in the south kept blacks down through a variety of legislative and illegal means, including intimidation, segregation, infringement of voting rights and police intimidation. Today the tactics are more subtle and masked by propaganda about "conservatives", yet aimed at the same goal: to keep minorities out of power unless they are willing to "play the game" that Democrats have rigged against them.
Democrats were extremely transparent in the methods they used to block a vote on Miguel Estrada in the Senate. First, when they controlled the Senate, they refused to hold hearings, claiming they "didn't know anything" about him. Well, a reasonable person would expect a hearing to be used to ask questions and thus become educated about the nominee. Then when Republicans liberated the Senate in 2002 Democrats moved to their fallback position: obstruct the process. During hearings Estrada answered over 125 questions, yet Democrats simply charged that he "refused to answer questions". The only questions that Estrada declined to answer were ones which judicial ethics prevented him from answering. When the baseless "refused to answer questions" tactic failed, Democrats launched a filibuster to prevent a vote by the full Senate. The filibuster continued the process of blocking Estrada's nomination, a process that grew to two years and five months until Estrada withdrew his name from consideration. And this is what the racist Democrats are calling a "victory".
Liberal commentators are desperate to spin the racism as something else, anything else. Casting about for something that will stick they claim that it is President Bush who is racist for nominating Estrada (!) or perhaps that "Congress" as an institution is at fault instead of the people actually blocking Estrada's nomination. Indeed, some liberal apologists are even attempting to drag Trent Lott (!) into the discussion. To all those liberal apologists caught in their own trap of propaganda over "affirmative action": we told you so. Treating people equally means just that. They are equal at the same time, in the same place with the same opportunities. They are not equal only when they are a member of your party and unequal when they are a member of another party.
President Bush should keep appointing minorities to Federal court positions. We need to send a message to the Democrats that their legacy of discrimination is over and will not be allowed to return. President Johnson appointed the first black to the Supreme Court, President Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court and President Bush should stand up to the racists and bigots in the Senate and continue to appoint well-qualified Hispanics to the Federal court system, so that someday they too will have the opportunity to serve on the nation's highest court.
Minister: Blacks' Loyalty to Democratic Party 'Unfounded'
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 24, 2004
(Editor's Note: This is part one of a two-part series examining the relationship between black voters and the Democratic Party, why historically blacks have given almost blind loyalty to Democrats, why their support is unfounded, and how black leaders exploit their own people on behalf of Democrats.)
Few things in politics are certain, but one thing that has rung true for decades is this: Most blacks who vote consistently pull the lever for Democrats.
But politics reflect the times, and the times, they are a-changin'. Increasingly, blacks are beginning to realize there is another truth about the ethnic group's loyalty to Democrats: It hasn't been a resounding success.
Still, in recent elections - and likely in the 2004 general elections - most blacks could be counted on to vote for Democrats.
Political demographers and analysts know this, and so do Democratic candidates — so much so that black leaders like Kwesi Mfume, head of the NAACP, has complained recently that the Democratic Party, led by presumptive presidential nominee John Kerry, is taking the ethnic group for granted.
Former newspaper publisher and talk show host Rev. Wayne Perryman doesn't understand why blacks support Democrats so blindly.
In fact in his new book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An In-depth Look Into the Blind Love Affair Between Blacks and Democrats," Perryman points out a number of facts that should have turned African-Americans against Democrats long ago.
Instead, blacks largely shun Republican politicians, though historically the GOP has been much kinder to blacks as a whole.
Liberal Democrats are Racist 3:26
Written by: Rocco Gotti
Music: B-Cube
Vocals: Shoanna Z
http://www.coradpress.com/l...
Written by Marv Essary
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
http://www.chronwatch.com/e...
“Why are most Blacks in America Democrat?” asked a group of inner-city young people to Rev. Wayne Perryman of Seattle, Washington. Perryman replied, “Because Democrats have done the most for Black people.” They asked him for material to find out exactly what the Democrats have done for Blacks. Perryman did not have any material to give them. He said, “I could see I would have to dig further to find the real answer…That decision led to some startling revelations regarding the relationships between blacks and the Democrats.”
"First and foremost, Black participation hinges on denying the presidential nomination to the dreadful, racist Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT), the DLC's champion. He will soon be recognized as wholly unacceptable to Black voters, who are the progressive mass base of the party, and to anti-war voters, a majority sentiment within the ranks at this time, nationwide.
Lieberman and the DLC spell electoral non-participation by Blacks. Therefore, he and his ilk are the enemies of all those who seek the broadest, most intense political involvement of African Americans in national life. There can be no compromise with people who poison the political well. Cohabitation with Rightists and racists means death to the Party.
Ninety percent of Black voters participate in national elections as Democrats. Therefore, the Democratic Party and its primaries are the field of national electoral expression for Black people as a whole. It is where the bulk of the people are - for now. In a fundamental sense, African Americans work out their political yearnings and programs through the mechanisms of the Democratic Party. If the political house is unwholesome, polluted with the unmistakable odors of white supremacy and Black sycophancy, African Americans recoil as one body."
"The Democratic Party and its consultants grossly underestimate Black capacity for decisive action, ignoring the sea changes that have swept over the Black body politic in the past. More specifically, they underestimate Rev. Sharpton, who has no personal stake in the Democratic Party's institutionalized structures of Black mollification and is the sworn foe of the Democratic Leadership Council. "
"Al Sharpton will not tolerate the influence, much less nomination, of Lieberman, the standard bearer for all that is wrong with the Democratic Party. Sharpton will treat Lieberman as the Republican that he is, methodically "outing" the devious crypto-racist in terms that no amount of corporate media ridicule and distortion can obscure. It is at that point, in the heat of foreign conflict and domestic anxiety, that the Black public will approach a sea change in their perception of the Democratic Party.
The future of the Party will then be in the hands, not of Rev. Al Sharpton who does not seek to destroy it, but of the men and women who have disrespected Black voters for the better part of a lifetime. They can have a Party crippled by Lieberman's DLC, or they can retain a Sharptonized Black electorate. But they can't have both."
It's OK for Democrats to Use Racist Terms
Mike Gallagher
Monday, March 5, 2001
Quick, someone explain to me how John Ashcroft gets blasted for giving an interview to Southern Partisan magazine but U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd survives calling people "niggers" on national television relatively unscathed.
When I saw Byrd make the observation that "there are white niggers" on Fox News Sunday, I almost fell out of my chair. I figured that such an offensive, outrageous comment made on national television would be met with protests and demands for the 83-year-old senator’s resignation. So far, there's been no such reaction.
Of course, we all know what's going on here. The colorful senator from West Virginia is the oldest Democrat in the U.S. Senate. As a Democrat, he regularly toes the party line (he was on Fox to criticize President Bush's tax plan). But this Democratic senator has an embarrassing past when it comes to race relations: As a young man, he was actually a member of the Ku Klux Klan. So perhaps his bigoted, ignorant choice of words Sunday should come as no surprise.
But we should again remember what John Ashcroft was put through. Here was a good and decent man, a religious conservative who was routinely called a racist. His crime? Granting an interview to the above-mentioned publication, a periodical that simply salutes and honors the proud and rich tradition of the South.
The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism
January 6, 2003 2:45 p.m.
Dems Need a Houseclean
No innocents.
ven with Trent Lott (R, Miss.) relegated to the Senate's backbenches, Democrats want the issue of Republicans and race front and center.
"How can they jump on [Lott] when they're out there repressing, trying to run black voters away from the polls and running under the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina?" Bill Clinton wondered on CNN December 18. "I mean, look at their whole record. He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day."
Senator Hillary Clinton (D., New York) said two days later, "If anyone thinks that one person stepping down from a leadership position cleanses the Republican party of their constant exploitation of race, then I think you're naive."
Incoming House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California added: "The Republican party still needs to do much more to remove the issue of race and any of its symbols from our political process."
Before lecturing Republicans, Democrats should mop up their side of the political spectrum.
Some black Democratic lawmakers say racism exists within the state party and they have little faith that their leader can improve the situation.
"They really don't care about us," said Delegate Tony E. Fulton, Baltimore Democrat. "We are used every four years, then thrown back."
(none)
"The Democratic Party acts as if they own black people," said Delegate Clarence "Tiger" Davis, Baltimore Democrat. "The state party is racist to the core."
"I think the Democratic Party takes black people for granted," Mr. Oaks said. "I think what [the Democratic Party] does in the state is just a reflection of what it does as a whole on the national level."
"There might be some individuals who have racist concepts," said Mr. Cane, recently elected to lead the 42-member House and Senate caucus. "But I don't think it dominates the party."
"I think the Democratic Party may lose younger, more economically stable African Americans if it does not demonstrate the capacity to understand their issues and support the economic needs of that community," he said.
http://lashawnbarber.com/ar...
I'm bookmarking this blog to look at every day.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...
What excuses will we hear from the left now?
http://www.townhall.com/col...
http://www.gmu.edu/departme...
also get the "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent "
http://www.gmu.edu/departme...
All Persons of European Descent
Whereas, Europeans kept my forebears in bondage some three centuries toiling without pay,
Whereas, Europeans ignored the human rights pledges of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution,
Whereas, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments meant little more than empty words,
Therefore, Americans of European ancestry are guilty of great crimes against my ancestors and their progeny.
But, in the recognition Europeans themselves have been victims of various and sundry human rights violations to wit: the Norman Conquest, the Irish Potato Famine, Decline of the Hapsburg Dynasty, Napoleonic and Czarist adventurism, and gratuitous insults and speculations about the intelligence of Europeans of Polish descent,
I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.
Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.
Walter E. Williams, Gracious and Generous Grantor
"
http://www.texasgop.org/ele...
http://www.texasgop.org/ele...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
90% of Democrats who voted against Civil Rights law (as highlited by your "party platform to 1964" link were Southern Dixiecrats who then migrated to the Republican party (sorry I can't provide exact numbers but I believe it was at least half or more).
>>Very interesting for those who aren't blinded by hate.
ow let's talk about this a moment. For one thing, the Democrats who were anti-Civil Rights were an important segment of the Party. However, these were aptly named "Dixiecrats," and they represented a more conservative, Southern part of the Party. Indeed, after Democrats spearheaded the aforementioned Civil Rights Act, and started to talk about Civil Rights in campaign speeches for the Presidency in 1968, the Dixiecrats went even more strongly Republican and the South started voting very strongly Republican thereafter. As Lyndon Johnson (Democrat!) remarked as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act: "There goes the South for a generation." How correct he was, and Nixon seized upon it with his "Southern Strategy" of 1968, which in part involved appealing to disaffected Dixiecrats who felt abandoned by Northern liberals who were championing Civil Rights.
Republicans absorbed the Dixiecrats into their ranks, and this helped them win repeated elections. It is so successful that even to this date, most people do not believe a Northern liberal like Kennedy could win the Presidency because of the South. After all, only Southern Democrats have since his assassination.
It is important to point out that although the Democrats used to have many racists and anti-Civil Rights folks among them, their rhetoric and policy proposals have been, since 1968, generally some of the most progressive and supportive of Blacks and Civil Rights. This occurred because Northern liberal Democrats were willing to lose--and lose big--to people like Nixon in order to safeguard the values that the Civil War should have enshrined but did not. To be in the modern, post 1968 Democratic Party is to be pro-Civil Rights, end of story. All of the anti-Civil Rights people in the Democratic Party either got out of politics or joined the Republicans, starting with Thurmond in 1948, and culminating with George Wallace's defeat in 1968.
If the Republican Party was more courageous than the Northern Democrats in the 1960s in sticking up for civil rights, that would be something. But it was Progressive Democrats who were willing to split their Party asunder, and lose the White House (except for Carter's term) for the next 28 years.
In contrast, the Republican Party has coddled and benefited from anti-Civil Rights Republicans such as Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott being in their Party, even if many Republicans are not racist themselves.
http://mitchmosvick.blogspo...
+ Bush Jr. (come on, he IS Jr, not "W"): Soring debt, war in Iraq, embarrassing relationship with other countries, depleting wilderness.
+ Clinton: Soring economy, strengthened international ties, progressive human rights movement, NO war... interesting. And he got a blowjob. Wow, how could he?
+ Bush Sr.: Although not the same level of stupidity, gave us a nice war that at least he had the nerve to end.
+ Reagan: Iran contra, complete ignorance of the AIDS epidemic, increasing debt and recession.
+ Carter: No war
+ Ford: Tripped a lot
+ Nixon: Vietnam... Watergate... need I say more?
Just because a party sticks to their guns, doesn't make those guns less dangerous. The "left" values equality and human rights... these core principles have never changed. The "right" should learn from the past: african americans ARE people too, women CAN vote AND work. Why is it so hard to see that, although the year may be 2005, their actions parallel those from the 60's.
Wake up and smell the hatred.
I'm new 'round these parts (well, at least I'm recent), so for the record:
I'm an evangelical Christian conservative, a USAF vet (Jan. 80-Dec. 83), regsitered with the Constitution Party (formerly the US Taxpayer Party). I haven't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Papa Bush beat Michael Dukakis, having voted for the USTP/CP candidate starting in 1992. I spoke out against GW Bush in 2000, and even louder in 2004, to all my evangelcial brothers and sisters for numerous reasons, and I strongly oppose the Iraq War.
That said, klaxonner ... "Wake up and smell the ignorance!"
You wrote:
==================================================
... Let's take a walk down memory lane and recall pieces from the last 40 years:
[snip]
+ Clinton: NO WAR [?!]
[snip]
+ Carter: NO WAR [?!]
[snip]
+ Nixon: VIETNAM [?!]
==================================================
1) No wars from Clinton? I guess that depends on what the meaning of "war" is (http://tinyurl.com/coz4a):
October 1993: 5,000 US troops to Somalia
August 1998: "Wag the dog" missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan (to divert attention from l'affaire Lewinsky)
December 1998: More "Wag the Dog" bombings, against Iraq this time (on the eve of the House impeachment debate)
March-June 1999: US aerial bombardment of Serbia
And then there was the THREATENED US military intervention in Haiti w/20,000 troops in 1994. Yeah, Haiti was a real threat to American security ...
2) Jimmy Carter: "... Carter signed the finding [ordering the CIA to provide covert backing to the moujahedeen] on July 3, 1979, SIX MONTHS BEFORE the Soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in order to try to provoke a Russian incursion. ..."
3) How on earth can you even look at yourself in the morning while you shave, attributing Vietnam to Nixon? That quagmire began under JFK and was entered into in earnest by LBJ. (Can you say "Gulf of Tonkin"?) Rent the Robt. Macnamara interview/documentary "Fog of War" for a quick review.
And let's not forget Truman (nuking Japan and committing us in Korea); FDR (goading the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor in order to give him the excuse to enter a war Americans didn't want any part of.
Of course, the blood of many Americans is on the hands of Republican presidents, also: Lincoln, Wilson, TR. But let's not pretend the Democrats have been outright peaceniks, shall we? It just won't wash.
But you are right that Democrats have been just as filthy "imperialists", Johnson & JFK as you point out, and Carter wasn't exactly the peace-nik that he's tarred today. It seems that now, too, Democrats try to play the "we're the kindler, more gentler imperialists (to steal a phrase from Poppy Bush).
Regarding Nixon though, recall that more of our troops died during his reign in Vietnam that any other president, after he promised to get us out of that war...
And Somalia campaign was begun by Poppy Bush...
Add Comment