• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

So ... it's a right-wing blogger making the same bogus points that have already been made in this thread. Compelling. :roll:
Was it? I couldn't get past the Sign up for Newt! ad ... :lamo



(Not laughing at you, AdamT.)
 
Which points are "bogus"?

For starters, the whole argument from history -- trying to suggest that today's Republican party bears any resemblance to the Republican part of the 19th century. Accusing Democrats of racism during the civil rights movement, when it's pretty clear that the offending parties would be Republicans in today's political landscape.
 
For starters, the whole argument from history -- trying to suggest that today's Republican party bears any resemblance to the Republican part of the 19th century. Accusing Democrats of racism during the civil rights movement, when it's pretty clear that the offending parties would be Republicans in today's political landscape.

Okay, so you have no argument with the facts in the article. Is that correct?
 
Okay, so you have no argument with the facts in the article. Is that correct?
I guess I'll never read the article on that page. Second time clicking in and I'm getting yelled at from some ad that auto-started. ****! pages like that. I don't care what's on them. If the owner has no respect for surfers/readers then ****'em, I have no respect for them, either. They can do without my traffic.


And if you want to call that "so left" you go right ahead. Damn if I'll be some mindless ad slave! I don't watch much TV for the same reason. I hate in your face advertising and selling. Salesmen like that see my back, too.
 
Last edited:
For starters, the whole argument from history -- trying to suggest that today's Republican party bears any resemblance to the Republican part of the 19th century. Accusing Democrats of racism during the civil rights movement, when it's pretty clear that the offending parties would be Republicans in today's political landscape.


Hell, in the eyes of todays lib, Kennedy would be a conservative.


j-mac
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, this absurd discussion of which party is the most racist is still going on? Sheesh! Get a life!

Please show me where I'm discussing either party being racist.

As a matter of fact let me refer you to one of my earlier posts.
BWG said:
Note...I am not now nor have I ever said Republicans or conservatives are racists. They just don't seem to attract many people of color...

If you don't care to keep up, you are most definitely free to 'Get a Life'...:lol:
 
For starters, the whole argument from history -- trying to suggest that today's Republican party bears any resemblance to the Republican part of the 19th century. Accusing Democrats of racism during the civil rights movement, when it's pretty clear that the offending parties would be Republicans in today's political landscape.

All this is your opinion only while not submitting any facts for support.

Your beliefs are of little interest if they're not based on some sort of reality.
 
Caving on the cuban missile crisis is likely what irks me.


Well, on that we probably could agree. It did not serve us well to give anything up in exchange for Russia pulling their missiles out of Cuba...And likely made America look weak. But this is how demo's work...My comment was that likely demo's today would see JFK as a conservative considering how far left they have drifted.


j-mac
 
Well, on that we probably could agree. It did not serve us well to give anything up in exchange for Russia pulling their missiles out of Cuba...And likely made America look weak. But this is how demo's work...My comment was that likely demo's today would see JFK as a conservative considering how far left they have drifted.


j-mac

It also raises the question of how BHO would deal with a similar crisis.

Scary thought, huh?
 
It also raises the question of how BHO would deal with a similar crisis.

Scary thought, huh?

We are watching it with Iran play out....Also didn't I hear today that the administration was going to share how our ICBM's worked to alleviate fears of the NK govt.? I am not sure about that but I thought I heard a blurb on that today....


j-mac
 
You're relying too much on the "Whig" label while Abraham Lincoln referred to himself under the Republican label. [...]
The point that the righties are missing is that I'm not relying on a label at all -- you are (erroneously). When you examine the underlying ideology, you'll find that conservatives opposed the civil rights movement while liberals championed it. Nothing could be more progressive (liberal) than first freeing the slaves, and then giving them the same civil rights as their former owners. The southern Democrats of the 1940's, 50's, and 60's were often or mostly conservative on social issues (such as integration / civil rights). As the Democratic party moved towards liberal attitudes on such issues, many southern Democrats switched to the Republican party (who, by now, long removed from their Lincolnesque Whig roots, harbored no such warm-and-fuzzy fantasies about integration or civil rights).

As to Lincoln, I've already provided a link to his statement that he considered himself a Whig, so your statement above is simply irrational.

The southern Democrats changed labels (party) -- not ideology. Since that defeats your argument, you cling to the label and ignore the ideology. In my neck of the woods, we call that a Fail.

The proclamation by President Harry S. Truman and Senator Hubert Humphrey of support for a Negro civil rights plank in the Democratic Party platform of 1948 led to a walkout of 35 delegates from Mississippi and Alabama. These southern delegations nominated their own "States Rights Democratic Party" (a.k.a. Dixiecrat) nominees with Senator Strom Thurmond leading the ticket (Thurmond would later switch in 1964 to the Republicans). The Dixiecrats held their convention in Birmingham, Alabama, where they nominated Thurmond for president and Fielding L. Wright, governor of Mississippi, for vice president. Dixiecrat leaders worked to have Thurmond-Wright declared the "official" Democratic Party ticket in Southern states. They succeeded in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina; in other states, they were forced to run as a third-party ticket. [...]

After 1968, with desegregation a settled issue, the Republicans began a strategy of trying to win conservative Southerners away from the Democrats and into the Republican Party. Nonetheless, a bloc of conservative Democrats, mostly Southerners, remained in the United States Congress throughout the 1970s and 1980s. These included Democratic House members as conservative as Larry McDonald, who was also a leader in the John Birch Society. During the administration of Ronald Reagan, the term "boll weevils" was applied to this bloc of conservative Democrats, who consistently voted in favor of tax cuts, increases in military spending, and deregulation favored by the Reagan administration. [...] Most of the boll weevils eventually retired from office, or in the case of some such as Senators Phil Gramm and Richard Shelby, switched parties and joined the Republicans. [...]

Conservative Democrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It also raises the question of how BHO would deal with a similar crisis.

Scary thought, huh?
And yet we continue to root out AL Qaeda from northern Pakistan even though the Pakistani military screams to high heaven half the time. There are many other countries we have no bones about operating in, either, when it comes to hunting down Al Qaeda. No need to thank Obama for the continued relations that allowed us to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden - something Bush & Co. spent seven years trying and failing to do. :roll:

One could almost wonder if that wasn't Bush's intention all along, just so he could keep that WANTED poster up on the wall.
 
Last edited:
Please show me where I'm discussing either party being racist.

As a matter of fact let me refer you to one of my earlier posts.


If you don't care to keep up, you are most definitely free to 'Get a Life'...:lol:

Yes, you did. My bad. I should have quoted someone else.

such as....

Originally Posted by Dickieboy
Further, who's the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice. And Republicans are racist as infered by the OP.
Posted by Grant:
An easy way to remember is "Democrats = Racist, Republicans = Non Racist".
By Adam T:

You can check here: Black Americans in Congress - Biographies of Members of Congress

But I'll give you the answer in advance.

Number of blacks currently serving in Congress:

Democrats: 39
Republicans: 2

Any more questions?
Originally Posted by Dickieboy
Explaining this in full will take more time than I have at the moment. If you would read this it may explain the underlying premise:

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans - HUMAN EVENTS

While I do not agree with the article as a whole AND some of the links are dead it does pose some ideas for thought.

kind of sounds like an argument about which party is the most racist to me.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, you did. My bad. I should have quoted someone else.
Not a problem...:) I just didn't feel like being 'Dear Abby-ed' at the time...:lol: LOL!


Dittohead not! said:
kind of sounds like an argument about which party is the most racist to me.
That one party - or the other - doesn't attract a particular group doesn't necessarily make that party racists, but it does lead to discussions as to why.
 
No, not handy. What difference does it make?

Because from the article I referenced it states 'There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts'. Yes, the statements made from the 19th century were over-reaches and I understand your contempt for the source but the statement above could be refuted if you wanted to take the time. However, I will stand by it now.

Do I need to expound on the specifics of this point?
 
Back
Top Bottom