It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

race card being played

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Ok, it was bound to happen, and we all saw it coming. But certain ad campaigns are comparing republicans to racists.

Do they not realize that it was DEMOCRATES who were screaming "segregation fah-evah" back in the 60's, do they know the first civil rights laws were laid by none other than Eisenhower ( a rep) back in the 50s! A lot of other civil rights laws were pushed thru congress by republicans, and strongly opposed by the beloved, democrates. It just doesn't make sense.

Just leave race out of it. Its over, and only reason its even still around is because people keep talking about it.




posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Can you give examples, Of where it is bring played now? Instead of just a statement about it.


Thanks, Its much better to have link to add. Thats #y,

Missouri Democrats place race baiting billboard, then say "Who, me?"

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
here's one example:
www.freerepublic.com...

says "Reublicans have a plan and you are not in it" sponsered by DNC



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Can you give examples, Of where it is bring played now? Instead of just a statement about it.


Yes, would love to see the DNC ads comparing Republicans to racists.


Oh this?


That statement is true for the majority of Americans no matter what race they are.

Case in point: We stand very much with what's behind the billboard, said the Democratic Party's executive director, Jim Kottmeyer. It has nothing to do with race.

But just in case, maybe the RNC should start a counter attack campaign on the history of love and harmony in the Republican Party.

They could get "Ol Softy" Jesse Helms to be the Teddy Bear spokesman.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I suppose Colin Powell and Condi Rice are really white anglo-saxons with really great suntans?

Never did figure out how anyone could vote for a candidate that is void of ideas and full of hate and blame.


Elect "El Finger Pointer" for 2004.
We don't need no stinkin' ideas!



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I suppose Colin Powell and Condi Rice


If I was them I would be so mad I couldnt see straight. This is an outrage. We are so past race, or should be. In this day and age, If people cant get past the color of our skin. Then there is no HOPE for the human race.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
What's with you guys making it a race issue just because the "average American" or "middle class Joe" featured in the ad happens to be African-American?

If anyone of color enters the public eye it has to be about race? It could just as easily be a woman. A white guy. Me.

I'm not part of the Republican's plan except as a well oiled cog in the mechanics of the globalization of Corporate Earth.

So they showed a black guy....in public! The horrors!


[Edited on 5-6-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Thats the point, out all the diffrent people that could have been chosen. They pick a black man, and tell him, he is left out.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Seriously, I wouldn't make too much of this. Anyone stupid enough to build such a poster in hopes that it will cause a race division is too stupid to influence more than one vote (their own).

Anyone stupid enough to vote Democratic beause a poster such as this convinced them that Republicans are racist are too stupid to influence more than one vote (their own).






posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
If that add had nothing to do with race, then why have a black guy squeezed in the corner of it? Could just as easily had a child, an elderly (white or black) person. But they use a sad looking black man. And they couldn't have put it in just anywhere in Missouri, where black population is 8%, they put it in st louis where there's 20-30% black population.

Whether or not they admit it, they knew *exactly* the point they were trying to get across.

Its only just begun... compare that billboard to the bombing of the Cole before the WTC. a dry run.

They've already started hinting that reps are nazi's, which is wierd because nazi's were socilists, I would think comparing them to democrates would be closer, but thats beside the point.

I agree that we drop the whole race thing. Both real "african-americans" I personally know are, ta-da, WHITE. They barely speak english. Try telling the DOT your race in that situation.

---
2000 census data
Link


[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Banshee]



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   


Textthe 60's, do they know the first civil rights laws were laid by none other than Eisenhower ( a rep) back in the 50s


History gets fuzzy sometimes, In 1964 the first President Bush, opposed the Civil Tights Act in 1964 when he ran for the US Senate form Texas that year. Geroge W. grew up in Midland, Texas, a segregated place, where the Bushes' black maid recalls being banned from waring anything but work clothes downtown. (From Bushwomen Tales of a cynical species by laura flanders.)



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Republicans Support 64' Civil Rights Legislation

I am sick and tired of the democratic partys antics in claiming that they were wholly responsible for passage of the landmark 1964 civil rights legislation when in fact it was their party that stood in the way of reform for decades.

CongressLink, Key events in passage of 1964 civil rights bill

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."

"The Republican pro-civil rights forces were blessed with gifted leadership. Although Senate minority whip Thomas Kuchel initially managed the party's forces, it increasingly became clear to Democrats, Republicans, the press, civil rights groups, and the White House that Everett McKinley Dirksen (R) was the key man in the entire civil rights legislative effort."

"On June 10,1964, after an impassioned plea by Dirksen on behalf of the compromise bill, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to close off the civil rights filibuster. Every member of the Senate was present for the vote, including Senator Engle of California who had suffered a stroke and could not speak but pointed to his eye as a sign of his "aye" vote. The margin was four votes larger than the 67 required. It ended 57 days of debate, the longest debate since the cloture rule had been adopted in 1917. Forty four Democrats and 27 Republicans supported cloture; 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed it."

Final Votes

"Under the Senate rules, after cloture is invoked each senator may speak for one hour on the bill or pending amendments. Although southerners called up many amendments between June 10 and June 17 to stall action further, the Senate leadership allowed only those it wanted to be adopted. Most of the amendments were defeated by large margins. On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record."

Political ads by the democratic party dealing with the record on civil rights are false, misleading and designed to perpetuate the hijacking of this legislation as wholly invented by the democratic party, so far the propaganda put out has been very successful as witnessed by some of the answers to this post, the lie has been swallowed hook line and sinker unknowingly by most liberals today who are taught revisionist history as truth.


The lie's have been so successful for decades it has even allowed an ex klu klux klan leader to be regarded as an elder statesman of the democratic party.

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with racism!! Just because there's a black man on the billboard this has nothing to do with racism!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Phoenix

I am not in or favor of either party because in the end it comes to one thing, political agendas by both parties, and US will always and ever be call:

White wheathy corporated america,

They rule.




posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Phoenix, the south was almost entirely Democratic then. No doubt Dixie-crats opposed desegregation. They were racists! They were on the wrong side of the civil war too.

But since then there's been a rush of old Southern Dems to the Republican party giving them red state after red state all across the "confederacy".

Coincidence? Or has something changed in the parties? Why did 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic in 2000? With one percent for Nadar and 9% for Bush?

Are you saying the majority of African-Americans are stupid? They don't know who's against them? If they had any sense they'd vote Bush? Nice.

And if "parading" people of color for your party is the issue, why was one comedian (I can't recall) pressed to comment on the 2000 Republican Convention...

Never in the history of America have so many talented African-Americans assembled to entertain so many untalened white people outside of the NBA.


Exactly why does the RNC always have so many minority spokespeople despite virtually no support in the community. Why did Condi Rice switch to Republican in 1982? Did she see the light? Or was it the Reagen Fellowship?

If it's a game, then it's a game all around. The RNC isn't shy about playing the race card at all. They just suck at it.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If you want to know about Condi Rice just remember what her role was with senior bush. I elaborated if I had more time but I had to go. But Rice picture is nothing more and nothing less than a political poster board for the republicans to appeal at the black minority. But Condi was not your regular black girl from Alabama


We have more to talk about.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
So how do minorites in Texas feel about the way things are going with Bush?

I do not see the republican party as racist, just the democrats trying to play the race card to win votes. Look at the history of the parties, pre1960 it was the democrats who were without a douby the racist party.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
For those that do not see race being played in that billboard, I don't see how you can NOT see it. There were plenty of other things they could have done - put a group picture of an african-american, caucasion-american, native-american, and asian-american (sorry if I left one or five out - too many "american"s) up there to symbolize more diversity, put NO picture up there, etc...

They are playing a race game, pure and simple - and it isn't right - for either side.

Yes, some people are stupid enough to vote that way because of a billboard - that's why they put it up there! That's why they all do commercials! That's why they all CAMPAIGN! Because many people do not do research on their own - they simply go by heresay and gut feeling. This is true of any political candidate that has any money whatsoever to spend - they want to sway your vote by picking at your emotions. DON'T LET IT HAPPEN! Do the research - then decide one way or the other.

My post above (Bush vs. Kerry - Educate me!) has a few good responses - thanks to all that reponded so far. You will really help me do my research and make my decision. If you aren't sure, or you think you hate one candidate because of one thing or another, I invite you to look it up and make your own decisions. Don't let them all make it for you!

I am talking about all sides here, not just one or two...



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I suppose Colin Powell and Condi Rice


If I was them I would be so mad I couldnt see straight. This is an outrage. We are so past race, or should be. In this day and age, If people cant get past the color of our skin. Then there is no HOPE for the human race.


yes we should be able to see past it. Much has changed in major metropolitan area. The academic communities changed the game years back. But in the last ten years I've heard plenty more race-bating in terms of "the black people are taking my jobs because of that free ride called affirmative action". I'm not sure we'll ever be past it. And we're entering entirely new territory. It's not just about black and white anymore. The increase in the hispanic community in the U.S. (legal and illegal) has thrown the balance into another dynamic. Now we've got the middle-east contingent of race to consider. Politicians thrive on differences. That's how they make a difference.



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
And what ad is it you speak of.....................or ar you just making things up again...............you old kidder that you are..........

Plus you seem to forget Truman (He was before Ike) had to use an executive order to move civil rights when he desegregated the military.

Those Dixie-crats who blocked civil rights legislation for so long got so damn mad they left the Democratic party and became Republicans.......Now there's somethin' er ya, eh?

BTW

What is the rac`e card and how do you use it? As you just have?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join