The Shocking Treatment Of Republican Blacks

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
I don't understand how people can become Republican after all the facts about the party there are. Like how they are all corrupt and see the world as one big giant oil mine, or why they think that they can win every country over by the influence of violence or money.

I think people support the major partys because they dont have to think the 6 oclock news serves up the illusions the politicans choose to create. I can understand why business leaders would support the Republican party but its beyond me why any one else would support a party runs bloated budgets and gives hand outs to "big business."

The Dems may also be controlled by business interests but thats a problem for American voters to consider.

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
So, is it acceptable for blacks to attack other blacks SOLELY because they feel that blacks, as a race, should not vote for Republicans, or is that inherently racist?

I'm quite sure they attack blacks that vote Republican because they feel Republicans suck much as you you claim to think they suck as well even though all you seem to do on this board is defend them. Making your all caps words "SOLELY" over race a straw man.

Don't you get it yet it? Probably don't care since I'm the only poster you care to engage. But this topic is a straw man. It's Republican victimization. And it's tiresome. I put every bit as much thought into a topic as it deserves. And I've put considerably thought into this one at various times over the years it's come up.

Forgive me for not repeating myself verbatim with link and citation every time someone unloads their inbox on here, but the right wing noise machine of which you're obviously part and parcel does not care about the Helms versus Gant race, or what the Republican Party puts on street poles during elections here in the south, or what Reagan did spreading lies about Chicago welfare queens or the fact the Republican Party paid David Duke for his racist mail list to recruit for "Justice Sunday" in their on-going efforts to introduce xenophobia into the population with their inherent merger of Christianity and homogeny. And don't get me started on their overt gay bashing. Please.

So no, I don't give their crap a second thought or take any of it seriously. And no amount of whining and complaints from you on their behalf is going to change that, my stealth Republican friend.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT

...they feel Republicans suck much as you you claim to think...

...all you seem to do on this board is defend them...

...since I'm the only poster you care to engage...

...complaints from you on their behalf...

...my stealth Republican friend...

I do believe that you have effectively just called me a liar. Repeatedly.




[edit on 2-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I do believe that you have effectively just called me a liar. Repeatedly.

...And straight into the victimization card, in spite of what you call me overtly practically every time you post or complain (which is significant).

I do believe that you have effectively just confirmed my suspicions. Repeatedly.

So it seriously hasn't ever crossed your mind that I might be telling the truth when I assert that I'm not a Republican, and that I have no use for the Republican party? Are you truly certain that I've said what I've said because of some partisan leaning that only you can perceive, and which partisan leaning is contrary to my own statements? Really?



[edit on 2-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]

Originally posted by RANT
I'm quite sure they attack blacks that vote Republican because they feel Republicans suck much as you you claim to think they suck

I'm with you on the objection to the word "solely", I'm with you on the fact that the Republican party couldn't exist without catering to a bunch of uptight Christians who see themselves as "haves" when they're not (that's why I abandoned the party not long after abandoning Christianity- it's too much about those people and no action on the things I care about).

I'm not sure I understand the idea that they're attacking Black Republicans just because Republicans suck though. When I'm in the mood to belittle Republicans, I usually pick on the religious right (unfortunately my favorite victim has been banned).

It seems clear to me that the two major parties and their zombies do a very good job of creating a sense of implicit association and agreement between certain groups and the party. Those who break ranks find themselves looked upon not only as political adversaries, but as traitors to boot.

I would certainly not claim this to be unique to blacks of course. I've been up to my neck in a Baptist Church, I've got a lot of family who still are, and my former pastor is still one of my best friends (he has a great sense of humor about politics luckily, but he still insists on standing whenever he hears the name "Ronald Reagan"). Being a Democrat is something you keep under your hat in the church. I remember having politics once come up in a discussion at a church picnic. One of the deacons tried to change the subject, and in so doing let slip that he was aware there were democrats present. Several suspicious eyes immediately turned to the only Black family in the congregation. The saving grace of the situation is that they weren't within earshot. (I happen to know that Carey and his family were not the democrats of whom the Deacon spoke)

And there you see both stereotypes at work at the same time. Christians have to be Republicans. You can't vote for a moderate Democrat, even if he is indifferent to the abortion debate and focuses on other issues.
A Black man is automatically assumed to be a Democrat. There is no assumption that other political interests might override those which are statistically likely to affect his demographic.

I don't know the history of your discussions with Bob, but it seems to me that the normal vehemence attatched to political rivalry is intensified by a sense of betrayal when it is directed at one who is expected, because of demographics, to be an ally.


The way I see it, whatever a person's interests are, he ought to advocate them in his political activity. If there's not a party that already does it well enough, which for many people there isn't, then it only makes sense to seek a way to change that. For that reason, it makes perfect sense to me that if one's highest priorities are not inline with those of his demographic, nobody should have a problem with him defecting, and for that matter if the prevailing concerns for the mean of a given demographic are not being advanced by the party they are expected to associate with, there should be no problem with them taking remedial action of some kind together in an organized manner.

In short, I don't see why a Christian has to be a Republican or a Black a Democrat, much less why they should be the target of any more or less disdain than anyone else. A political rival is a political rival regardless of his demographics. He's got one vote, one voice, and he's equally capable and fallible with everyone else- so why is a Christian Democrat more detestable to Christian Republicans tha any other Democrat (same question for Black Republicans obviously)?

I think I'll close with one of my pastor friend's little gems. He went on a bit of a rant once about how upset he was to hear a prayer breakfast turn into an Iraq war rally.
When he was telling me about it I said, "Well you know the bible says that it is God's will that none should perish... unless their country has oil. What book is that in again?"
Without hesitation, Dave chimes in, "Oh, yes, Second Republicans Chapter 9, verse 11"

Vagabond: What the document dump was that? Your post is long and you basically keep repeating your stance over and over again. There are only a few things in there that I even have the time to address.

you say:

What tired rhetoric is that? You mean calling the Republican Party "the party of Lincoln"?

The rhetoric that I was referring to is that line of thought--"democrats have done nothing for black people." Now, this thought is one of the Bushies favorite propaganda pieces and it would be effective if Republicans didn't hide racist among their ranks. Still, it isn't true. Black folk's issues are the same as everybody else's. Whenever one of our representatives vote they are doing something to us or for us. Now, if you are saying "blacker" issues aren't at the forefront of American politics because democrats take our vote for granted...I'd have to say that's illogical because "blacker" issues don't exist anymore we are a fully integrated minority, and issues no longer come in pigments.

you say:

nobody's concerns are being addressed through the democratic process in this country. That's a big part of why I'm not a Republican. The two major parties have their voting blocs and don't have to do much for them, so they don't.

This is an opinion not a fact still I'm inclined to agree with you but, if an issue that effects people of color such as affirmative action is brought before both bodies it is subject to the same democratic process as all other issues. It is easy for the bushies to say dems aren't doing anything when republicans control both houses of congress and can hold up a bill in conference to the point that its not worth the paper its written on. If nothing is being done for "blacker" issues in your opinion then the republicans are just as much at fault if not more because they are in control of what issues get out of conference for a vote.

You're not JUST individuals. You are individuals in a community of likeminded individuals; no two people are perfectly the same in their views, but you can dang well be close enough to unite. Focused in one direction of your collective choosing, you command respect and have considerable authority. Seeing yourselves only as individuals, you can be herded.

Would you say something like this about a group of white people. See, this is the thing that makes your arguments pointless to me. I have more in common with my neighbors (which consist of mostly white middle class folk) than I do with black folk in the projects because of my socio-economic status. If you were to say my neighbors and me share a community then you'd be right. That doesn't mean I don't know black folk in the projects or sympathize with their struggle...but the basic issues that effect my life are yards away from those that effect theirs. Trying to lump us all together because of the color of our skin is what makes your stance disgusting to me. Black people are fully integrated into American society--whatever problems society face...black folk face.

Why do black folk need to unite? Give me an issue that effects ALL black people and only black people? Affirmative Action effects women and all people of color and different nationality. Reparations--a non-issue because black folk don't even support it. You'll really have to dig it out of some dusty corner from back before the civil rights movement. Equal education--all poor people. Mandatory drug sentencing effects black and brown people and dems created the drug court which combats the racist law passed by none other than racist republicans and their racist war on drugs. Police brutality--real issue--but nothing can be done about that. as long as racist exist have power to hurt the folk they hate--they are going to use it. Prosecute them...which is being done.

Issues. One of the most liberal states in the union just put a man to death a couple weeks ago- I suspect you're aware. A man who is not expected to be friendly to Roe v Wade was confirmed with the support of half the Democrats in the Senate.

In California a majority support the death penalty and a republican governor didn't grant clemency.
The congress has strict rules on who they can and can't confirm and judge Roberts was qualified for the position. Bush has a right to put forth a name and if the record is clean congress has to confirm tis not a political thing--or at least its not supposed to be.
In both of these issues it isn't that dems weren't working for us--tis the democratic process which is effected by who the people put into office. Both of these issues were overseen by republicans. Love it or hate it...its what we got.

that's it cousin...we are so far off topic that I almost forgot what the topic of this thread was...

I still say, its not racist for black folk to call other black folk out for supporting the racist republican party. the call to arms of this site is deny ignorance and that is basically what black folk are saying when they ridicule those that choose to ignore the racist in the republican party. Don't ignore it, face it...these are the folk that you should tell to start their own party instead of supporting a party whose overall platform has racist undertones.

I used that word in that context in order to at least try (and possibly I failed) to address what I believed to be a relatively straightforward distinguishing characteristic of this issue.

While it might be relatively unlikely, it is at least possible that a black who supports Republicans actually holds some of the values that those who are attacking him/her holds, and it's even just barely possible that the Republican in question holds some of the values that the attacker holds, but neither of those two possibilities is granted the least consideration-- rather, the attacker bases his/her attacks SOLELY on the fact of the subject's support for the Republican(s).

I don't know if that clarifies my intent or simply verifies that to which you already objected, but there you have it...


As an aside-- my issues with RANT, his increasingly acrimonious accusations notwithstanding, have nothing whatever to do with politics and are entirely personal. And that's enough said about that...

While it might be relatively unlikely, it is at least possible that a black who supports Republicans actually holds some of the values that those who are attacking him/her holds, and it's even just barely possible that the Republican in question holds some of the values that the attacker holds, but neither of those two possibilities is granted the least consideration-- rather, the attacker bases his/her attacks SOLELY on the fact of the subject's support for the Republican(s).

Look, obviously you just don't understand the MAJOR difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want hand-outs such as social programs while Republicans want a hand up. Republicans would give food, or a place to live to help that person get out of the hole they are in. Democrats want to give out a check each month to support these people. What Democrats don't understand is that welfare(without a limit) makes people totally reliant on the government. This is what we saw to a great deal with Katrina. People were so incapable of being self-sufficient that they were literally "stuck". Republicans can be bad and good. The idiots such as Ken Lay with Enron are obviously not good. But to simply say all Republicans are bad is not the truth. If you understand the two different points of view, then you get a feeling of where a group is coming from. Democrats believe the government can cure all, give money to everyone, and support them. Republicans believe in giving small amounts(enough to get them out of the hole) to others, making sure the roads are good(so that commuting to work is possible), and making sure that there is a strong economy(jobs for people to work at). Once you understand the differences, then you may not be as angry at Republicans.

Originally posted by agwardlds
Look, obviously you just don't understand the MAJOR difference between Republicans and Democrats.

No, I think that's you.

Perhaps you missed how much your Republican controlled congress INCREASED the size of government the past few years from Homeland Insecurity to unprecedented Federal intervention in local schools, or just how much Bush personally increased welfare spending undoing practically all of Clinton's reforms, as well as undoing a projected surplus to an 8 trillion dollar deficit financed by OUR ENEMIES, not to mention the millions in "faith based" hand outs with the new Dept of Metaphysics he singularly created getting Government in the Church business as well or how YOUR PARTY you claim wants a strong economy and jobs has done everything in it's power to fast track both right out of the country.

Sure, Republicans want a strong economy. In Central America.

Once you understand the differences, then you may not be as angry at Republicans.

Once you open your eyes to the truth, then you will be angry at Republicans too.

And Bob, there's nothing personal about the Internet. Don't get something weird in your head that isn't there. I couldn't care less.

agwardlds,

You have to take what you read on this site with a grain of salt. For every "right" minded person here there is about 15 "malcontents." They have grasped the national Bush bashing frenzy with open arms and jumped right on the band wagon. I voted for Bush, I predominantly vote Republican, and I agree with much of what you posted. I do agree that Bush has spent more money then I would like as RANT was oh so quick to point out. He just can't seem to separate "Bush" from the "normal" Republican ideals.

I'll make damn sure the next Republican I vote for curtails this spending issue and cuts some of the crap programs that are sucking my money out of my pockets.

Originally posted by Saphronia
Vagabond: What the document dump was that? Your post is long

Yeah, I was a little taken aback when I took a second look at it. I ought not have responded to you quote by quote- I should have condensed your statements and responded in general.


As for your respsonse, it contradicts your attitude. You claim to be fully integrated, yet you cry racism at every turn. I understand that it would be nice if we could paint all Americans the same color, but this remains a very diverse country, and with diverse people often come diverse living situations, and with that comes diverse political interests.

Now there are successful blacks and there is white trash- both in great numbers (and more than a few of each friends of mine at one point or another). That does not change the fact that blacks, like any demographic group, are statistically more likely to encounter certain problems and need certain issues addressed, even though those concerns do not apply to every African American.

While you seem to give some credence to my belief that most groups and their interests are marginalized within their normal party of choice, you maintain that they still get their day in congress the same as anyone else. This is true, and that position has both a strong virtue and a dangerous drawback. On the one hand, respect for the democratic process is important to the extent that respecting the law of the land as set down by the majority does not infringe ones most basic rights (and few can claim that their rights are so infringed in most cases). On the other hand, one must not foresake the idea of manuevering for greater efficacy within the system. Our democratic process is imperfect- one is only even nearly equal once one has seized the initiative to get his concern its day in congress.

Many political agendas which the mean of African Americans, Christians, any other group would favor would seem unwise or disadvantageous to me, and I would oppose them within the political process if they promised to affect me negatively, however I have no problem with, and to a certain extent encourage those groups to attempt to enhance their stake in the process to the extent which can be justly done. I may disagree with them, but I'd respect their initiative, because I don't like complacent rulers, and the people ostensibly rule here.

Republicans very clearly are quite blamable for their failure to address the concerns of blacks. There are two sides to this. One one hand, they weren't elected on those issues, in fact they were almost kept out on those issues. On the other hand, Bushies do make a big fuss about putting down people who claim that he's not their president, so presumably if he is everyone's president he should seek to resolve matters to Pareto optimality.
This does however ignore that there are underpreforming state governments under Democratic control, that there are Democratic congressmen who vote "the wrong way", etc.
The concept itself is reinforced by the fact that many Republicans can't get their concerns addressed even while the party controls the federal government.

You ask if I would assert that white people form groups of common interest. You'd have been better to ask not if I would, but if I have. I DO assert such groupings among white people, particularly the Republican base of evangelical white wannabe bourgoise. I don't like them, but they do have common interests on average and could get their party to do more about them if it weren't for the fact that they had already checked the registration box on their voter registration card and signed in blood.

Your difficulty with my assertion as you understand it makes sense, but you seem to have mentioned a couple of things. First, I do not assert that ALL blacks have the exact same interest, nor do I assert that of any group. Second, even those who find themselves outside of the average sometimes share common interests for one reason or another. Even you do not deny these common interests, you only try to sidestep it by adding a qualifiers that I never asserted, namely "ALL" and "ONLY".

I still say, its not racist for black folk to call other black folk out for supporting the racist republican party.

I love to close on an ironic note, and I think this fits. You just got done asserting that blacks don't have a common interest to be grouped by, but then you assert that it's fair game to call a black person out because they shouldn't be a Republican. I thought blacks were fully integrated- then why do you at the same time believe that they have no place in the political party which currently dominates federal government?

It's like I said in my response to RANT, on the premises you have asserted regarding black integration, there is no reason for a black republican to be any more despised than any other, yet it is clear that a sense of betrayal amplifies the typical disdain for rivals.

You're welcome to be liberal. You're welcome to pledge yourself to the Democratic party, forsaking all other liberals. You're welcome to hate Republicans.
To be honest, when you get right down to it, you're welcome to particularly despise black Republicans as long as you don't violate their rights; it's intellectually dishonest though.

Originally posted by agwardlds
Look, obviously you just don't understand the MAJOR difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Perhaps because it's grotesquely overshadowed by the MAJOR similarity between Republicans and Democrats. They are both made possible by the rich, they both refuse to ever betray the rich (sometimes different sects of the rich, but not always). They both represent an anachronistic "first attempt" at modern democracy which excels at conducting business as usual and fostering a false sense of belonging while doing no more for the average person than the more difficult multi-party systems. They both hold a major stake in an unjust political oligopoly.
Their only real difference is in their approach to violating the United States Constitution.

Oh, I almost forgot my favorite similarity, although neither would admit it: they'll both kill you if you get in the way. One would do it quietly at Gitmo, the other would cook you alive on national television, then reaffirm the gesture by symbollically running the ATF flag up your compound's mast the minute you were dead.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Perhaps because it's grotesquely overshadowed by the MAJOR similarity between Republicans and Democrats. They are both made possible by the rich, they both refuse to ever betray the rich (sometimes different sects of the rich, but not always).

Just make sure you don't confuse 'refusing to betray the rich' with 'refusing to punish them for being rich.'

And I'm sorry, but I have to jump into this race issue. I didn't want to get involved because I know how touchy a subject it is. But I swear, sometimes there is a race issue when it doesn't even exist. Yes, I am a white male so I shouldn't be allowed to comment on this. But I'm going to anyway... Sorry.

I just can't fathom the idea that if you are black you have to vote Democrat. I never even thought of it as a race issue. Sometimes I think the ones calling on the race card are the ones that are truly being racist. Yeah, I said it. Someone tell me why a black man voting Republican is bad? I just don't get it.

I didn't throw crackers at my girlfriend when she voted for Kerry... Even though her only reasoning was "Bush is an Idiot." We aren't together anymore.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Just make sure you don't confuse 'refusing to betray the rich' with 'refusing to punish them for being rich.'

But which class of the "rich" suffer? Defense contractors, especially shipbuilders not withstanding, the ultrarich do OK under Democratic rule. It's those who are just on their way to building something new who are swiftly cut down by progressive measures. (for the sakeof not turning the conversation too far off of parties and their supporters, it stands mentioning that no critique of progressivism is implicit to this statement- one could interpret it as meaning that we're not being progressive enough).

I just can't fathom the idea that if you are black you have to vote Democrat. I never even thought of it as a race issue.

Well, it's not just a race issue. There are issues which disproportionately concern specific demographics, however in addition to that there's a heavy dose of "us and them" mentality. The parties thrive on that. Most political systems do. Class warfare, common enemies, with us or against us, etc. To win an election, a party has to mobilize a base of very nearly 50%. The parties either can't or won't actually earn the vote of 50% of the population though- this is pretty well demonstrated by common results in multiparty systems where parties define their agendas more narrowly and tend to be truer to their campaign pledges. So to capture 50%, they have to play us and them. That's what affiliation by race, religion, etc is about.

I didn't throw crackers at my girlfriend when she voted for Kerry... Even though her only reasoning was "Bush is an Idiot." We aren't together anymore.

1. Maybe you should have.
2. He is.
3. Sorry to hear that, but I hope it's for the better.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
1. Maybe you should have.
2. He is.
3. Sorry to hear that, but I hope it's for the better.

1. You are probably right, would have kept her from stuffing her face with Twinkies.
2. Yep, an Idiot became the President of the U.S.
3. Oh yeah, I refuse to date a brainless lib ever again.

For Vagabond: we won't be able to convince each other with words because our views are pretty well set. Even though it wasn't my intention to convince you I feel like we are just running in circles.

I do feel that it is important to point out that we all share experiences with each other no matter the color of our skin, and it is the responsibility of each of us to call racism out where ever we see, feel, or hear it. The blunt truth is that there are ideas that are still hanging around and being passed down generation to generation. While institutional racism is still hanging around in the court system, for the most part it has been addressed. We still have to deal with racist individuals and ideas about people of color that some don't consider to be racist. Some of the ideas you have I feel fit this category, that is why you assume the color of someone's skin is a tell-tale sign of issues that they want addressed.

I did ask you to name an issue that only effected black people in this country, but you were unable to do this because we are a fully integrated minority. The idea for needing separate this and that is still hanging around...some of your ideas you linked to panthers but they were dealing with a different system. I don't believe their ideas would've worked back then and they most definitely won't work now because the law has changed along with the state of black people.

You also accused me of "crying racism" if I say something is racist please believe I have data to back it up. I believe that calling something racist that isn't is just as poisonous to our society as racism, so I did take offensive.

The racist drug laws can be found here.

The republican party is notorious for using issues that should've been dead decades ago to win elections. One example I already stated: can be found here.

And..here. This is the history of republicans appealing racist ideals.

Anyone that votes republican or supports republicans are backing racist ideals about black people whether they want to admit to it or not.

While you didn't "assert" that all blacks have the same interest your ideas assume we do--and it was you who suggested that we UNITE under some psuedo-government within the US to get our issues heard. Now, you come back and claim you understand we don't all have the same issues. Okay, then we agree here for the most part, but at the same time, you believe that it's ironic that I think its okay to call out ignorance among black republicans. There is no irony here. Racism and racist ideals still exist. That fact doesn't make black folk less intergrated into this society. We are still americans no hyphen. Remove the hyphen, please.

Saphronia, it seems to be your sole purpose to accuse me of racism, and I am unwilling to continue dignifying your charges.

You attempt to declare victory because I have pointed out the inapplicability of your almost-cleverly worded traps, you have mischaracterized my statements, and you have repeatedly attempted to bait me into defending a political party which to be perfectly blunt has done nothing to earn such efforts on my part. Those who have read our exchange thus far may judge for themselves, because I will not further engage on these subjects so long as your approach remains what it is.

It is not as if the subject with which we deal is without historical precedent in conflicts which have been fully resolved at this point. I suggest that you could be greatly enlightened in the subjects upon which you have administered self-contradictory lectures by investigating the histories of other discriminated minorities which have achieve swifter and more successful integration.
I, however, will not endeavor to guide you in this process, because I do not take kindly to such vulgar accusations. There are plenty of awful things I could be accused of that I've actually done, so I have no interest in being accused of things that I have taken great care not to be guilty of.

Good luck, Kill Whitey, and other such farewell biddings
-Vagabond

I didn't ask you to defend the republicans. You accused me of "crying racism". That is why I posted the things about the republican party because I did call them racist. And, I'm well aware of the fact that you don't believe your ideals are racist...I pointed that out too. Wasn't baiting you dood, just stating my opinions. Sorry if they cause offense, but maybe you should examine those a opinions a little further...I hope you will.

Peace.

Originally posted by Saphronia
The racist drug laws can be found here.

Anyone that votes republican or supports republicans are backing racist ideals about black people whether they want to admit to it or not.

I'm sorry, about the drug law link. I don't see what's racist there. It's about mandatory minimum sentences for meth users... How is this a racist thing?

I really don't agree with anything you say about the Republican party. Racism is practically dead... The only people keeping it alive are ignorant hicks and the blacks themselves that constantly bring it back up. I guess me feeling that way will probably result in me being called a racist. I can assure you I am not. Maybe I'm just ignorant for not noticing this as an issue in this day and age. I can assure you that if the Republican party was as racist as you seem to assume. No Republican would ever get a elected to a government position.

One of your articles was about Bush visiting some traditionally racist college... Do you know what his speech was about while he was there? Most of the things you bring you up in your links I wouldn't even consider as being racist.

But many white Southerners saw new civil rights laws as unwarranted, unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into their local affairs, and one of the results was a strong shift to the Republican Party.

Reagan's 1980 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, stirred controversy when he told the crowd of his support for "states' rights." The phrase was long used as code for resistance to black advances, sure to be well-received by Southern voters.

Most of these issues you bring up aren't examples of the Republicans being racist, they are examples of the federal government staying out of southern states business. Which is a strong ideal of the Republican party. More individual power to the states and less federal government. The sites you bring up have biased views and don't show both sides of the issue.

George W. Bush became president with just nine percent of the black vote.

If these sorts of things are actually what the majority of black voters think I can see why the Republican party only gets 9% of the black vote. Do I think its true? No. Tell me, what has the Democratic party done for you that makes you want to vote for them?