Black republicans...who are they really?

[BlackAsCoal]

The explanation as to why many blacks became republicans in the late 19th century is rather simple.

Lincoln was a republican who FREED slaves (prompting southern ex-slave owners to join the former democrat party)....
Any modern day black republican, however, is mostly doing it for self-serving and NOT policy driven reasons.

It's not that black republicans are self serving as much as democrats have politically become more power driven.

Denocrats have been very good manipulators and "salesmen" in their message to draw blacks to their party. Every election they talk about the rich not paying their fair share and that they are the party that will force to make it happen. This same message that returns every election cycle leaves the view that republicans are made up of those that tend to be rich and more successful, where the blacks feel they are not.

Democrats add to this by saying affirmative action is still needed in this country. Now we have a policy that looks solely at skin color over qualifying efforts and achievement, this leaves blacks with an automatic advantage over other people of race which begins to add to more of an "entitlement" mindset over just hard working effort. Add the case in Connecticut where firemen were denied their promotion because not enough blacks were able to pass the test, and an administration that believes that a policy lowering test standards is the proper way to get more blacks promoted. This would only further drive the entitlement mentality, as again republicans are to be viewed through democrat rhetoric as being more successful, while blacks vote democrat because they feel they are being held back and need that added "edge" to make them feel more successful.

Black republicans believe that they can work hard to be successful within their own race without the need to lower standards or look for race driven policies to give them the added edge over other people of race. Black republicans try to send a message that they can achieve success, while this talk of "the evil rich" is just a ploy to take advantage and try to capitalize on those blacks who FEEL within themselves as being the least successful black "image" the Democrats given them to believe. Black republicans see the entitlement message played by liberal democrats as an excuse and a means for the individual NOT to try harder but for the government to provide for them. They see relying on government over relying on your own personal effort as a form of enslavement, because of the growing dependency that leaves them fearful every time those government policies (like affirmative action) are threatened to be removed ... leaving them to rely solely on their own individual abilities. Of course, taking away those policies like affirmative action, must mean you are a hateful racist, as Denocrats so like to use race to describe those that don't adhere to their liberal ideological political view. The Liberal Democrats are very good at labeling as they will always let you know who they feel are the more successful and rich, which party they represent, and which party it will take to provide for them with what they are "entitled" to have with their racial edge to get it.

There are too few black republicans to even matter. They have no power and no sway even within their own party.

The Democratic Party has a plethora of ELECTED BLACK PEOPLE .. the Republican Party does not. You failed to mention that in your biased analysis because it completely destroys your argument.

All the whining about who black people vote for from republicans won't make one iota of difference in elections. The is the bed REPUBLICANS have made .. not democrats.

I think the Democratic Party's propaganda has conned black people to vote Democrat. Wedge issues, like the rich getting richer, affirmative action, wages, it has been the call for Democrats for decades and we see the Democratic Party does nothing. They are still wedge issues and Elected Democrats neglect the issues. Nothing changes, nothing gets better. As we saw in 2009, black employment took the hardest hit. We saw Obama and the Democrats give lip service, but with all the talk, like year after year after year, the party in power, the blacks friends, sat back and did nothing but sympathize and blame others. Same old song and dance. The color of the man in power didn't matter, the democrats in congress, did nothing but blame.

:0) That's funny. In fact it is the Republican Party that has solidly convinced black people to vote for democrats.

Let's see if you can answer something every other republican making your claim runs away from ..

Democrats have elected a plethora of blacks legislators .. republicans have very few and their party remains virtually all-white.

Question: Why should any black person vote for a virtually all-white party that doesn't elect black people?

.. and while you're pondering that .. ponder this ...

Did democrats "con" Asians too? Are they looking for 'handouts?'

In fact, NO non-white group in America votes overwhelmingly republican.

I'm betting that you could see better without your blinders on.

You can't answer my questions, yet you want me to answer yours? Pretty funny.

:0) I don't give a fuck whether you answer my questions or not .. don't expect you to.

My questions are rhetorical .. knowing republicans can't answer them.

 

[sealybobo]

In rays world corporations call all the shots. We the people are at their mercy.

Let the market decide

We are at their mercy. They have the jobs and Americans need jobs.

It's the rule of man with the gold. The man with the gold makes the rules.

That was true until liberal democracy kicked in. In the last 50 years the rich have slowly broken the social contract with American workers.

We know you're OK with that. We are not. It's why you lose elections. Your ideas are unpopular

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That was true until liberal democracy kicked in. In the last 50 years the rich have slowly broken the social contract with American workers.

We know you're OK with that. We are not. It's why you lose elections. Your ideas are unpopular

It's not my ideas, it's just the way things are.

Companies never had a social contract with American workers. Companies don't have a social obligation either. Companies open up to produce products or services for a profit. That's it.

In the last couple of decades, we've had nearly 16 years of Democrat leadership in the White House. So what changed compared to a Republican led White House? Nothing. So it's more than "our" idea.

So what's driving down these pay scales? Three things: One is foreigners entering the country which Democrats welcome. Two is consumer demand. Three is automation.

Consumer demands the lowest price no matter what. It doesn't matter where their products are made, if the company uses slave labor, if they produce the product here or in China, if their products are made by a robot. Just make it as cheap as possible and forget about the quality. That's why Walmart is the number one store in America today.

 

[GWV5903]

Democrats have tried (and admittedly not always with successful results) to tackle issues to help our black communities...through job programs, education,housing, health services, etc.

The Liberals have set them up for failure, don't sugar coat it. The "Programs" are designed for dependency, not to lift them up to be self sustaining. Human nature, no matter the Race will take the path of least resistance...

Conversely, republicans have offered virtually NOTHING but the casting of derision toward these same black communities (e.g, "they're lazy"......"too many unwed mothers"...."black constantly kill each other"....etc.)......and THEN, republicans actually have the balls to both wonder and state, "what's wrong with these blacks for not voting for republicans"??????" :

This stereotype is not the beliefs of most Conservatives, it's the boiler point that both fail to get past. The majority of legitimate Black leaders will be the first to state, it's a systemic problem in the culture that needs to be fixed from within, what you fail to understand is the policies of the past have born no fruit...

To continue feeding a system that has failed is not the solution...

 

[GWV5903]

The GOP way produces a small rich class, small merchant class and the rabble/surfs/peasants masses of working poor. We've seen this before in England but instead of Kings we have koch's.

Small Rich and Merchant class? There's nothing small about our economy, try selling this BS to the same idiots that buy it on a regular basis...

This is the best country for personal growth bar none!! But you have to be willing to work for it first, also we fought the Revolutionary War because of over taxation...

You sent jobs overseas because labor was costing the corporations you serve too much. Yes unions say protect the American workers. Tariff

Oh wait I thought you wanted to raise Minimum Wage to $15 per hour?

 

[GWV5903]

You should vote for what's best for our country, not what's best for a single race...

Fuck that .. and fuck people who think there is a difference.

And you're calling who a racist? Need to do a little self reflecting before you label anyone...

sure

Hypocrisy looks like you...

Gee .. did you accomplish that all by yourself.

Moron :0)

It's sad you have nothing but innuendo, you can't even list one Conservative policy that harms the Black community...

It's clear you have followed and not lead anyone, your nothing more than a racist that you cry so much about hating...

You claim to have helped young blacks, based on the crap you have posted they would be better off if you just left them alone...

 

[JoeB131]

Government doesn't send jobs overseas--private companies do.

Unions have said and done a lot of things. It's one of the reasons those companies moved out of the country and took their jobs with them.

Blaming unions for outsourcing is like blaming short dresses for rape.

 

[JoeB131]

It's extortion if a company can no longer make products in the US, but it's not extortion if somehow the government removes this so-called status?

Except there's no excuse for a company not making things in the US. None whatsoever.

I have my own solution. What we need to do is out the outsourcers.

When some asshole executive outsources a bunch of American jobs, we need to air the following commercial.

"This is Bob (Bob's picture and his full name.) Bob moved his factory to China and put all these nice people out of jobs.(Picture of the company picnic). This is where Bob lives. (Picture of his house and the address). This is Bob's wife. (picture). THis is where that bitch gets her hair done. (picture of her favorite salon). This are Bob's douchebag kids. This is where they go to school. Make sure you let Bob and his family know what you think of them."

 

[JoeB131]

It's not my ideas, it's just the way things are.

Companies never had a social contract with American workers. Companies don't have a social obligation either. Companies open up to produce products or services for a profit. That's it.

so why should it be that way? Why don't we have an attitude of a social contract.

You see, as a very smart and wise man said, "You didn't build that." The rest of us DO subsidize your business through our taxes, through the public services we provide, through our patronage.

You see, somewhere along the line, businesses forgot they were part of a community. Probably when they put their shareholders ahead of their employees and customers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so why should it be that way? Why don't we have an attitude of a social contract.

You see, as a very smart and wise man said, "You didn't build that." The rest of us DO subsidize your business through our taxes, through the public services we provide, through our patronage.

You see, somewhere along the line, businesses forgot they were part of a community. Probably when they put their shareholders ahead of their employees and customers.

Where are you living at, La-La land?

Nobody subsidizes business. When a business opens up, yes, they did build that. They create a huge new tax base for the city. They pay more taxes than the next five residential streets that border their industrial complex or business. That's why cities and even states often try to lure businesses in with temporary tax breaks. They know that having X business will generate great wealth for the city. Any money that city doles out for the streets, lighting, sewer and water are all investments--not philanthropy.

A Social Contract is a wonderful thought for WhoVille. But this isn't a cartoon, this is reality. If you want a social club, join a bowling league or softball. But business has nothing to do with being social in our country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except there's no excuse for a company not making things in the US. None whatsoever.

I have my own solution. What we need to do is out the outsourcers.

When some asshole executive outsources a bunch of American jobs, we need to air the following commercial.

"This is Bob (Bob's picture and his full name.) Bob moved his factory to China and put all these nice people out of jobs.(Picture of the company picnic). This is where Bob lives. (Picture of his house and the address). This is Bob's wife. (picture). THis is where that bitch gets her hair done. (picture of her favorite salon). This are Bob's douchebag kids. This is where they go to school. Make sure you let Bob and his family know what you think of them."

And you think that would change one consumers mind?

Bob is not hard to find. In fact, when Bob moves, it's in the media. It's on our internet. It's on Bob's product packaging where he makes his products. Nobody cares.

I've seen companies move out of our area. One of our customers is a crate manufacturer. They make crates as large as a tractor-trailer for the process of moving machinery and equipment. We have delivered those crates to businesses that moved out.

When possible, I have always tried to discuss the move with whoever the supervisor is, and at times, even the owners themselves.

What I found is that business owners hate the idea of moving from their very own country. It's just that they have no choice. Their competitors moved out some time ago, and are now taking their customers away with lower prices because of lower taxes and labor cost in other countries. In a few cases, they tried to address this problem with their employees, but the unions convinced them to not back down and work for less money. They convinced their union members that the company was playing a game of Chicken. So the company either moves themselves, or closes down and join their former employees in the unemployment line. Either way, those jobs are gone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Blaming unions for outsourcing is like blaming short dresses for rape.

Unions are just part of the problem. The larger problems are government and the American consumers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NNIGGERS

What a stupid comment.

 

[JoeB131]

Where are you living at, La-La land?

Nobody subsidizes business. When a business opens up, yes, they did build that. They create a huge new tax base for the city. They pay more taxes than the next five residential streets that border their industrial complex or business. That's why cities and even states often try to lure businesses in with temporary tax breaks. They know that having X business will generate great wealth for the city. Any money that city doles out for the streets, lighting, sewer and water are all investments--not philanthropy.

Exactly my point. the rest of us subsidize your business. Thank you for admitting that.

So we should have some reasonable expectations on how you conduct yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

Blaming unions for outsourcing is like blaming short dresses for rape.

Unions are just part of the problem. The larger problems are government and the American consumers.

no, the problem is the 1% is too fucking greedy.

you could reduce everyone to minimum wage and abolish all the government agencies, and they'd still find ways to screw workers and consumers.

Why? Because they were doing that BEFORE we had unions and government agencies.

If we just take him off his leash, he'll be fine!

 

[JimBowie1958]

What I found is that business owners hate the idea of moving from their very own country. It's just that they have no choice. Their competitors moved out some time ago, and are now taking their customers away with lower prices because of lower taxes and labor cost in other countries. In a few cases, they tried to address this problem with their employees, but the unions convinced them to not back down and work for less money. They convinced their union members that the company was playing a game of Chicken. So the company either moves themselves, or closes down and join their former employees in the unemployment line. Either way, those jobs are gone.

The costs of labor are a small part of retail costs. A pair of Nike shoes that sells for about $60 costs 25 cents to make in Vietnam, and it would cost them maybe a solid US dollar and change to make that same pair here in the USA.

You have been repeatedly lied to through out your life about the costs of goods.

Businesses have other places to make their cuts to costs and prices, like to their profit margin or to their business model, such as selling directly to retailers instead of to warehousing middlemen for just two examples.

They could also relocate to other areas of the USA that have almost nill union membership and very low costs while still having great infrastructure and an educated work force.

These companies are moving because the tax laws are structured ever since WW2 to encourage over seas investments to grow the economies of a war ravaged world in which the USA had the sole remaining undamaged industrial complex. They accomplished this by allowing overseas profits to be deferred in their taxes, etc. Well, it worked, and we can now change them to 'encourage' companies to bring their profits back here to the USA.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

How are Republicans supposed to have blacks elected in our party when there are so few blacks in our party?

This is when YOU become a nitwit because of your own rhetoric and biases......

Throughout this thread you right wingers "praise" those blacks that vote republican as ENLIGHTENED......If that were truly the case, would not these enlightened blacks be PERFECT candidates for many elected positions for your equality-driven GOP??

That's too rational for these people! When they have reputable Blacks backing them like Powell, they end up disappointing him or using him for means other than truth like promoting idea of WMD's in IRAQ! His reputation is tarnished for all time when he very well could have run for President himself! Proves you can't dance with the Devil without being burned!

You really should to be better informed on the events leading up to the removal of Saddam, and the views of your political party, ignorance doesn't suit you.


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

.......and after all of the above saber-rattling, WHO ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq relatively soon after 19 bastard killed 3000 plus Americans...NONE of whom were Iraqis.????

You want to "share" the blame...at best......and at worst, you morons want to blame just democrats for the Iraqi fiasco.

Yes we can see the Clinton administration was only good at SITTING ON HIS ASS, just like he did after The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia 1996, the U.S. Embassy bombings at Kenya/Tanzania in 1998, and attacking the USS Cole Bombing in Yemen in 2000. It's no wonder why these terrorists were emboldened enough to attack on 9-11, look at all they got away with.

That's the problem with Clinton, he believed Iraq had WMDs, Demicrats believed Saddam had WMDs, yet you want to blame Bush for actually taking that information and doing something about it. Saddam Hussein was supposed to allow those weapon inspectors into Iraq to do their job PRIOR to Clinton getting elected, that's at least 7 years of Clinton doing jack shit about it. If Clinton had some balls, those UN inspectors might have told us if Iraq had ANY WMDs, wouldn't they? Remember that the next time you want to try and blame Bush for Iraq - dumbass !!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

putting Palin "1/2 a heartbeat" from the Presidency would have been tantamount to being irresponsible at the least and treacherous at the most! ;-/

Yeah Bidden makes me fell at peace...

Well he should in comparison to that Alaskan redneck with her crazy arse husband leading a movement for their state to secede from the United States! Yeah, that's Presidential material there!

Thank God Obama survived...

3. "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." --Joe Biden, Athens, Ohio, Oct. 15, 2008

2. "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008 (Watch video clip)

1. "This is a big fucking deal!" --Joe Biden, caught on an open mic congratulating President Barack Obama during the health care signing ceremony, Washington, D.C., March 23, 2010 (Watch video clip)

Joe's an idiot of the first order, but you have nothing to worry about you still have him beat...

I know Joe's smarter than you...

I know, the left will talk about Sarah Palin's intelligence, but who did they actually approve of as Vice President? If that's a reflection of their oarty, it says a lot, not to mention their view of women.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The costs of labor are a small part of retail costs. A pair of Nike shoes that sells for about $60 costs 25 cents to make in Vietnam, and it would cost them maybe a solid US dollar and change to make that same pair here in the USA.

You have been repeatedly lied to through out your life about the costs of goods.

Businesses have other places to make their cuts to costs and prices, like to their profit margin or to their business model, such as selling directly to retailers instead of to warehousing middlemen for just two examples.

They could also relocate to other areas of the USA that have almost nill union membership and very low costs while still having great infrastructure and an educated work force.

These companies are moving because the tax laws are structured ever since WW2 to encourage over seas investments to grow the economies of a war ravaged world in which the USA had the sole remaining undamaged industrial complex. They accomplished this by allowing overseas profits to be deferred in their taxes, etc. Well, it worked, and we can now change them to 'encourage' companies to bring their profits back here to the USA.

As somebody who works close with industry, and in fact, worked at a shoe manufacturer at one time, I can tell you you're not going to make a pair of Nike shoes for a dollar. That doesn't even come close for the cost of the material.

If it cost less to sell direct than to distribute through warehouses, I'm sure business would have done it long ago. But guess what? More and more warehouses are opening up. The ones I pick up and deliver to are busy places. In fact, I usually just sit in my truck and wait for them to get done because those tow motor drivers are maniacs. I don't want to be anywhere near them the way they drive. But they are trying to catch up on the trucks so their customers don't have to pay layover time.

If a business cuts their profit margin, they also cut the worth of their stock. Businesses heavily rely on investors to operate. Yes, they can cut into their profit margin to have better paying jobs, but at the same time, they will lose investors.

Good paying jobs all boil down to the consumer, not Republicans, not Democrats, not anybody but the US consumer. When we make the decision that US jobs come first before cost, that's when we will see more work coming back to the US, and more stores carrying US made products. Until such time, we can sit back and point fingers at everybody except ourselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

no, the problem is the 1% is too fucking greedy.

you could reduce everyone to minimum wage and abolish all the government agencies, and they'd still find ways to screw workers and consumers.

Why? Because they were doing that BEFORE we had unions and government agencies.

And they stopped after we inserted more government and unions?

According to Factcheck.org, taxes, labor and transportation costs play into where a manufacture produces their goods. Manufacturers like to produce close to their consumers as they can to reduce transportation costs. But in the US, they are burdened with thousands of regulations and taxes to deal with which makes production less profitable in the US.