Conservatives and Racism

[koshergrl]

It's not trolling to acknowledge your confusion, poggo. Your first point in this thread clearly illustrates that you weren't aware of the facts that the OP referenced. Regardless of your pretense throughout the rest of the thread to convince everybody that you would have understood if it was more clearly stated.

He didn't state a damn thing. He put a couple of images up. That's why I forced him to articulate. I needed a starting point. Rhetorical tires don't have anything to grip in free space.

I understood his point perfectly. Because I already knew that Republicans (who most people call "conservatives" today) have historically been the party to defend the rights of minorities, to the point of embracing them and accepting them as power figures, when appropriate. Unlike democrats, we don't vote based on color, family name, sex or income. We recognize individual rights and applaud freedom and equal opportunity..and we always have.

Blanket statements. You're saying Republicans are robots? I don't buy it.

No these equations that pretend political parties sit at the red light and never move from that spot no matter what the traffic is doing are simplistic, unrealistic, dumbed-down and don't pass the historical smell test. And I tore into all this on page one here, once I was finally given a starting point.

That'll be post 8 if you're scoring at home. Or even if you're by yourself.

Nope, it's not a blanket statement at all. It's quite specific. Nor did I say Republicans are robots. Nice try.
Nor did I apply an equation.

Once again. Republicans are historically devoted to equal rights (as are Christians)...to the extent that they take action and take risks in order to extend those rights to all.

The rest of your post isn't worthy of comment. Very little of your blather is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

********** with attitude

WTF Happened to USMB??

 

[Pogo]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

LBJ "I'll have them ****** voting Republican for the next 200 years" was NOT a Conservative

Nor is that a real quote.

Oh, the fuck it isn't!

LBJ Used the now banned "N" word like a Sunday preacher discussing Jesus

Your source for this quote then?

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS Appointment Thurgood Marshall

Completely out of context. Texas good ol' boy trash talk. Nor does this have anything to do with politics.

Anything else?

 

[longknife]

Conservatives and Racism

Conservative dogma does not sanction racism. However racists tend to identify as conservative, tend to vote republican, and feel comfortable among conservatives.


This doesn't mean, of course, that conservatives are racist, but it is incumbent upon conservatives to examine rightist dogma to discover why their political philosophy is indeed attractive to racists.

LBJ "I'll have them ****** voting Republican for the next 200 years" was NOT a Conservative

Nor is that a real quote.

Oh, the fuck it isn't!

LBJ Used the now banned "N" word like a Sunday preacher discussing Jesus

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS Appointment Thurgood Marshall

And he was a life-long dedicated Southern Democrat who showed his racism without apologies.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, cuz what politicians say has nothing to do with politics.

How lame.

 

[Pogo]

********** with attitude

WTF Happened to USMB??

Now you're even more off the rails. This is unrelated to politics, politicians, LBJ, this party, that party, any party or any political ideology at all. Thanks for playin', aloha.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, cuz what politicians say has nothing to do with politics.

How lame.

Not when expressing personal power plays it doesn't, hell no.

 

[Pogo]

It's not trolling to acknowledge your confusion, poggo. Your first point in this thread clearly illustrates that you weren't aware of the facts that the OP referenced. Regardless of your pretense throughout the rest of the thread to convince everybody that you would have understood if it was more clearly stated.

He didn't state a damn thing. He put a couple of images up. That's why I forced him to articulate. I needed a starting point. Rhetorical tires don't have anything to grip in free space.

I understood his point perfectly. Because I already knew that Republicans (who most people call "conservatives" today) have historically been the party to defend the rights of minorities, to the point of embracing them and accepting them as power figures, when appropriate. Unlike democrats, we don't vote based on color, family name, sex or income. We recognize individual rights and applaud freedom and equal opportunity..and we always have.

Blanket statements. You're saying Republicans are robots? I don't buy it.

No these equations that pretend political parties sit at the red light and never move from that spot no matter what the traffic is doing are simplistic, unrealistic, dumbed-down and don't pass the historical smell test. And I tore into all this on page one here, once I was finally given a starting point.

That'll be post 8 if you're scoring at home. Or even if you're by yourself.

Nope, it's not a blanket statement at all. It's quite specific. Nor did I say Republicans are robots. Nice try.
Nor did I apply an equation.

Once again. Republicans are historically devoted to equal rights (as are Christians)...to the extent that they take action and take risks in order to extend those rights to all.

The rest of your post isn't worthy of comment. Very little of your blather is.

Translation: "I don't wanna read all that. It's too much work".

Too thoughtful for ya? Prefer to stay with the bite-size rhetorical morsels?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't read most of your garbage. I pick a sentence or two that leaps out, deal with it, and then move on. Otherwise, it's too much time and thought spent on garbage.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not trolling to acknowledge your confusion, poggo. Your first point in this thread clearly illustrates that you weren't aware of the facts that the OP referenced. Regardless of your pretense throughout the rest of the thread to convince everybody that you would have understood if it was more clearly stated.

He didn't state a damn thing. He put a couple of images up. That's why I forced him to articulate. I needed a starting point. Rhetorical tires don't have anything to grip in free space.

I understood his point perfectly. Because I already knew that Republicans (who most people call "conservatives" today) have historically been the party to defend the rights of minorities, to the point of embracing them and accepting them as power figures, when appropriate. Unlike democrats, we don't vote based on color, family name, sex or income. We recognize individual rights and applaud freedom and equal opportunity..and we always have.

Blanket statements. You're saying Republicans are robots? I don't buy it.

No these equations that pretend political parties sit at the red light and never move from that spot no matter what the traffic is doing are simplistic, unrealistic, dumbed-down and don't pass the historical smell test. And I tore into all this on page one here, once I was finally given a starting point.

That'll be post 8 if you're scoring at home. Or even if you're by yourself.

Nope, it's not a blanket statement at all. It's quite specific. Nor did I say Republicans are robots. Nice try.
Nor did I apply an equation.

Once again. Republicans are historically devoted to equal rights (as are Christians)...to the extent that they take action and take risks in order to extend those rights to all.

The rest of your post isn't worthy of comment. Very little of your blather is.

Translation: "I don't wanna read all that. It's too much work".

Too thoughtful for ya? Prefer to stay with the bite-size rhetorical morsels?

I take it only you are allowed to troll this thread?

 

[Pogo]

I take it only you are allowed to troll this thread?

I'm a very fast typist. I didn't need that skill 'til you showed up with the water pistol. But it's always good exercise, thanx.

I don't read most of your garbage. I pick a sentence or two that leaps out, deal with it, and then move on.

I know. That's why your responses come out the way they do.

 

[Agit8r]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.

Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.

Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.

Let's be completely honest here. "Conservative" politicians of today favor capital of labor 100% of the time, and the capital of the very wealthy over the capital of the everyman 90+% of the time.

 

[Faun]

I did not think it was necessary to make more than a brief statement as the story and photo spoke for themselves.

Of course, instead of reading the article, there had to begin a long series of posts attacking me and the source of the article - instead of seeking to deal with the original idea that blacks should be seeking conservatives who have always supported their desires to advance - instead of liberals who want to keep them dependent upon government.

Pointing out that the Republican party wasn't the party of racists 140 years ago establishes no point in the context of modern day parties. Especially given that the modern day Republican party could find only one black "worthy" enough to earn their vote. Nothing scream racism louder than actions; and the actions of the Republican party, which has elected only 6 blacks since the ones in your graphic depicting black Republicans elected nearly a century and a half ago, speaks volumes.

 

[koshergrl]

The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....

 

[Pogo]

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

What you forgot to mention--and probably even to consider--is that the GOP was not a conservative party in the 19th Century.

Do you know what you're talking about? The idea that people advance in their work is absolutely a conservative idea. That they begin as labor for others, eventually being able to hire labor for themselves, was part of the American idea at the country's founding, and has always been a part of the GOP platform. Lincoln's ideas of the accumulation of wealth and of the seeking of opportunity are American ideas, not Progressive ideas.

In fact, in that same speech, he warns laborers not to surrender the "political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Lincoln's warning, of course, was not long heeded, as we have seen for ourselves since the Progressive Era.

It's not my post, but if I can interject, since I did post the full quote -- the thread is about what political parties stand for through the course of time. Lincoln's quote, which you have amplified above, is obviously worker-friendly (i.e. sympathetic to the "commoner" class). That's a Liberal philosophy, and demonstrates once again my whole point that parties evolve, devolve, and migrate their positions. You have only to consider the relative positions on that constituency today to see the radical turnabout. QED.

Lincoln's speech was also capital friendly. He defends the acquisition of wealth and the ability to hire others.

Lincoln's quote does not favor workers. It favors the American work ethic. Lincoln thought people should be able to both sell labor and hire labor. Social mobility is conservative.

Let's be completely honest here. "Conservative" politicians of today favor capital of labor 100% of the time, and the capital of the very wealthy over the capital of the everyman 90+% of the time.

I pointed out to him that this is a glowing example of how parties shift in their ideological roles through time. Had we all been on this mesaage board 150 years ago it's a safe bet that everybody identifying with the one party now --- would have been with the other then.

I didn't notice his closing phrase at the time--
"Social mobility is conservative".

--- The Ministry of Truth turning 180s again. Social mobility means people are not fixed in classes; and that's very much a Liberal idea. Liberals after all are the inventors of the concept "all men are created equal". That egalitarian spirit is the whole essence behind breaking down the aristocratic class system we threw off to create this country. Lincoln's speech here is another expression of it.

The same proletariat gotta get themselves past this facile notion that one, "liberal = Democrat and conservative = Republican", and two, that that equation, even if it had existed, is a fixed one throughout time. It isn't.

That's why I went to those loquacious lengths earlier; this study deserves more and deeper thought than offhand false sound-bite slogans using the credibility factor of an Aesop's fable. Dumbing down to that degree is a deflection, a way of sidestepping an inconvenient rhetorical swamp.

 

[Pennywise]

Democrats have been using blacks as chattel for over fifty years. They have destroyed the black family unit and been able to blame white conservatives for the failures of their legislation and ideology and the personal choices of the black underclass. It's quite a stunning reality that we live in. How is it possible that blacks vote like sheep? And against their own best interests.

Are blacks really genetically inferior? Are they able to be led like dogs down a path of self-destruction? Or is it as old as the hills, this problem? Is it maybe that democrats have simply tapped into the human failing, that whenever something goes wrong, always look to someone else to blame...

If I were a black man, I would be disgusted at how my race acts like a single hive of inane drones. It's something that should be studied beyond the surface. It's sick.

 

[Pogo]

Here's the basic beginning flaw of this thread's premise:

Thread title:
Conservatives and Racism

Good. Very worthy topic.
Then when I press him for what his point is he says this:

I posted this to show how the GOP has always been inclusive of blacks. Some of the finest minds of this current era are conservative blacks who sorrow for what has been handed to their brethren by liberals.

He doesn't make a distinction between "conservatism" and the Republican Party. He thinks they're the same thing.

That's where the understanding has to start.

 

[Faun]

The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....

While it's true to say that of the Republican party of the 1800's, it's complete and utter bullshit to pretend that to be the case of modern day Republicans who have elected a whopping grand total of 6 blacks to Congress since then. That's just 6 blacks elected in more than 26,000 elections since 1900. Sure, you can say Republicans are "color blind" ... they don't see black people. Unless they're committing a crime, that is.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....

This is even going on today. Democrats are very racist and Science Proves It.

Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.

Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white." ​

 

[longknife]

The actions of the Republican Party, who historically and currently have shown their steadfast color blindness, is a proud one. I understand why racist dems want to pretend it didn't happen..and as you can see in Pogo's case, changing history does bear fruit. He had no idea....

While it's true to say that of the Republican party of the 1800's, it's complete and utter bullshit to pretend that to be the case of modern day Republicans who have elected a whopping grand total of 6 blacks to Congress since then. That's just 6 blacks elected in more than 26,000 elections since 1900. Sure, you can say Republicans are "color blind" ... they don't see black people. Unless they're committing a crime, that is.

And, when conservative blacks run for office, the barrage from liberal sources against them is incredible. Name one who has run and then check out the amounts of money from Democrat sources pouring out in opposition to them.