Why Can't Republicans Attract Minorities?

reply to post by Krieger


Oh, you're talking about these neo-cons. that's completely different. They aren't Republican. You're only helping them by referring to them as Republican. They live completely contradictory to core Republican principles.

If they're one and the same to you then I may as well stop posting in this thread.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


The Neocons ARE Republicans. The ones formally known as Republicans have gone to the Libertarians. Unfortunately RP wouldn't go to them.(I edited my last post, go read again)

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

Easy is appealing, but short lived.

The other requires work, but benefits for a lifetime.

Government should not be in the business of handouts, thats what charities are for.

reply to post by Krieger


The neo-cons are into the Republican party the Democratic party and there are some involved with the Libertarians and Constitutionalists. They're everywhere. The Libertarians are just running with the core Republican platform.

I'd like it for once if we could avoid little Orwellian name games. I'm pissed so many are just jumping ship rather than take a stand like Paul has and say, "this is wrong" and work to fix it. I can't just drive my car over people and shout self-defence and suddenly it's true. But I guess if enough people did it suddenly blatent murder would be thought of as self-defence? Well that's what's happening to both major parties right now.

There are still real Republicans. Paul is one. I am another. Libertarian is roots Republican. Neo-conservatism is an entity unto it's own.

It's like that line in Office Space: "Why should I change my name? He's the one who sucks."

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Office Space, great movie!

But he wasn't being arrested for say, serial homicide because he had the same name as a serial killer.

That what happened with the Republican Party. Whether its lynching a gay man or a black woman or American women and men in uniform by sending them to other countries for oil and Halliburton profits. Why many, like former GOP Bob Barr, have gone to the Libertarians.

reply to post by Krieger


Ah Krieger, I see...you mean like the esteemed Senator Byrd? I thik I'll start another thread about this but so as not to suffer chastisment of the one sentence policy, the only way things are going to change across the board is if the political election system is revamped. The day of career politions needs to be reassessed. Either with term limits voting them out of office.

Originally posted by Dronetek
WHAT RIGHTS? You keep saying rights in plural first of all, yet you can only come up with "marriage", even though they can get all same benefits legally.

No, I came up with marriage, not "marriage". I'm not talking about benefits of marriage (although there is that), I'm talking about the legal right to marry anyone they choose. Just like the rest of us have. The right to publicly proclaim their union and have it recognized BY THE STATE as a legal MARRIAGE.

The equal right to talk about your partner when you're in the service.
The right to equal opportunity in the job market.
The equal right to adopt a child.

As if marriage isn't enough, there's some more.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

No, I came up with marriage, not "marriage". I'm not talking about benefits of marriage (although there is that), I'm talking about the legal right to marry anyone they choose. Just like the rest of us have. The right to publicly proclaim their union and have it recognized BY THE STATE as a legal MARRIAGE.

Because your changing the definition of marriage, The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

They already have civil unions for those who chose partners of the same gender.

Marriage also includes reproduction, civil unions do not.

Thay are 2 different things and deserve different terms of identification.

reply to post by mhc_70


Hahahaha! Anyone reminded of "Seperate but Equal."?? Wow.

"I don't get it Bubba. We told dem dey were separete but dey still sezs dey want ta be equal."

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

As if marriage isn't enough, there's some more.

Oh yeah, so many that you've failed to mention a single on in any of your posts yet. What you are doing is fudging the facts and exaggerating, for the sake of making another victims pool.

What you still fail to understand is that they still have the right to marry. What you want, is for a religious culture to redefine its reproduction traditions for the sake of gaining some votes.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Dronetek]

This thread is not about gay marriage. IF you want to discuss it further, maybe you should start a thread. I won't contribute further to a gay marriage discussion.

mhc_70, That's just ONE meaning. There are several. One being gay marriage. Another is when flavors marry. The marriage of art and science. It's just a word. No one owns it.

My marriage does not include reproduction. Many do not. Yet they are legally married. Your argument is meaningless.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're the one claiming that Republicans are anti-gay rights, when you cant even make the case for any rights being withheld from gays. Which goes to the heart of the false stereotype that Republicans don't care about minorities.

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by mhc_70

 

Hahahaha! Anyone reminded of "Seperate but Equal."?? Wow.

I know exactly where they're coming from. It's like in CT I wanted an AK-47 but that particular semi-auto chambered in 7.62x39mm has been arbitrarily banned in CT. Eveybody told me "oh, you can just get a Mini-30, it's the same thing." Well, even though it is a semi-auto in 7.62x39mm it's not the same thing. And if they themselves believed it was the same thing then then why weren't both rifles made illegal in the state?

Right now a marriage is not the same thing as a civil union and a Mini-30 is not the same thing as an AK-47.

I feel your pain brother. (Fist Pump)

reply to post by Dronetek


Except the 2004 elections were all about gay bashing by the GOP.

They withold the right to marry in legal terms. In life terms in most places they withold the right to walk in public holding hands without getting a beating, if not killed.

reply to post by Dronetek


I mentioned 4. If you're not reading my posts, I can't make you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You've mentioned something other than marriage, which isn't even a right that's held from them? Whats the other 3? Did you post them in grey colored text or something?

.
So, the question should not be whether black Republicans exist, the question should be, why aren’t there more? Many people try to make the argument that the Republican Party is the party for the whites. They also contend that the Republican Party does not do anything for the minority makeup of America. However, to think that the Republican Party has done nothing for the black community is ignorant of history. Instead of trying to argue what the Republicans do not do for the black community, a more acceptable thing to do is recognize what the Republican Party has done for the black population both in the past and the present.

The Republican Party was instrumental in ending the heinous system of slavery. Slavery was a major platform issue. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States and a Republican, ended slavery. He did this by signing both the Confiscation Act and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Continuing on, a Republican Congress passed both the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. These two acts helped promote equality between newly freed slaves and the white population. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 called for extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, all creeds and despite prior service as slaves.

Now let’s fast forward to the passage of more civil rights acts in 1957, 1960 and 1964. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 were proposed and signed by President Eisenhower to help blacks have the ability to vote. The famous Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not only introduced by a Republican senator, Everett Dirksen, but it was passed with more support from Republicans then Democrats. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial restrictions on the use of public facilities illegal, strengthened voting laws, provided for the integration of schools and made employment discrimination illegal, thus providing more job opportunities for blacks.

Besides passing legislation in Washington, Republicans have been highly involved in advancing the black cause in America. For instance, everyone knows of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, a black activist group. However, did you know that two Republican women, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, started the NAACP?

The Republican Party also has helped blacks make strides in education. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in schools, was passed by a majority-led Republican Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who gave the opinion in the case, was nominated by Republican President Eisenhower. It was also Eisenhower who ordered U.S. troops to Arkansas to help nine black students, the Little Rock Nine, enter a high school. The high school was blocked by state troopers ordered by Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus to not let them in. Finally, was President George W. Bush, who supposedly does not like black people, not a supporter of the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold the University of Michigan’s affirmative action decision?

In the sporting world, Republican business owner Branch Rickey helped tear down the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Rickey owned the Brooklyn Dodgers team that hired baseball icon and first black MLB player Jackie Robinson in 1947. By the way, Robinson was a proud Republican.

Here is what one black Republican thinks:

www.liveleak.com...

Why Am I A Republican 2008 - Compilation

reply to post by mhc_70


There you go with all your "history" and "facts" trying to counter the real truth (as told in this thread) that every vehicle with a GOP sticker on the back has dragged more than one "colored" to his death. Universal truth don'tcha know.

Besides all that "history" was written by white people. Most likely by a relative of Bush who foresaw the truth of the popular GOP sport of "negro draggin'" being leaked despite Roves satanic powers of manipulation.

reply to post by jam321


Why Can't Republicans Attract Minorities?

Because Republicans practice delayed gratification and Democrats don't. This principle is basically Protestant in origin, being called the "Protestant work ethic."

Minorities aren't raised with that kind of mindset. Consequently they don't function well in our free enterprise/capitalist system and need more help adjusting to such an eco-social system as that. Democrats provide those services and Republicans are reluctant to do so.

Democrat politicians don't really help minorities make the adjustment into functioning successfully in our eco-social system. They attract votes through pandering to minorities' and stirring up resentment against the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the long-term, this causes minorities to become dependent on handouts and doesn't teach the Protestant work ethic.

Republican politicians are too busy defending themselves against the resentments of Democrats to see what needs to be done. They don't reach out to help. Instead they "circle the wagons" and try to preserve a dying breed. That mentality can be seen in the country clubs and the "whites only" churches.

The situation is tragic though. Neither Democrats or Republicans have the solutions. They are only able to survive because of the "checks and balances" of the democratic system. Otherwise, as I like to say, absolute ignorance corrupts absolutely.