Republicans Racist?

[Kathianne]

Considering the accusations made by Obama on the Clintons and the Democrats about the Republicans, I thought this blog post may be worth looking at and discussing.

It's some facts about Al Sharpton. The same Sharpton embraced by Obama, the Clintons, and most Democrats. To a lesser extent the same type of fact sheet could be done on Jesse Jackson, onetime Democratic Presidential candidate.

Consider now how the Right has acted about Ron Paul. Don Black. David Duke. Think even how the perceived racism by Trott was met by mainstream Republicans. Is the Left going to argue that the Right is too PC?

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/01/the_uniters.html


...

You know, it appears more and more that the Democrat's cries of racism re:Republicans is a form of projection. David Duke is denounced in mainstream Republican circles for his racism. Those same mainstream Republicans pushed Pat Buchanan out of the Party for a whiff of anti-Semitism. Or look at the heat Ron Paul is getting from Republicans. Why do the Democrats give their race baiters and anti-Semites (often one in the same) a pass?

Could it be they can't win elections without them?

[typomaniac]

Forgot the Willie Horton ad already?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Republicans are the party of whites who generally support pro-white positions, but would never admit it to themselves. Too taboo.

Democrats are the party of blacks, Hispanics, Jews and other minority groups who explicitly support their own racial agendas, and not only admit it to themselves, but brag about it and see no problem with it whatsoever. And, a few whites who are so desperate to avoid the charge of "racism" that they'll support a political party working against their own racial interests.

So, where does that leave us? With a bundle of contradictions and unclarity that needs resolution of some kind or another.

I'll tell you this much. Those who think that just waiting for whites to die off -- or for "racists" like me to go away -- will end racial strife, don't bet on it. Look at the incredible blow-ups happening WITHIN the Dems over Hillary v. Obama. It's fucking hilarious. Or at the fights between Hispanics and blacks in LA. Again, more theater. Pass the popcorn.

Races do not get along. They never will. Get over it.

[gabosaurus]

DUH -- Read this forum if you need more proof that Republicans are predominantly racist.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

DUH -- Read this forum if you need more proof that Democrats are predominantly racist. FIXED :finger3:

[Pale Rider]

So we're right back to the old adage, "only white people can be racist."

Bullshit. The most racist people I've ever met in my life are blacks, and the level of violent crime that blacks commit against whites bears that out.

[Psychoblues]

No question about it. And they are anti worker, anti union for freemarket workers, anti women, anti anything that isn't old white men that are just trying to give a little something to their kids.

[Kathianne]

No question about it. And they are anti worker, anti union for freemarket workers, anti women, anti anything that isn't old white men that are just trying to give a little something to their kids.

Thank you! I knew you would recognize discrimination when you met it.

[Psychoblues]

You just love discrimination, don't you, kitty?

Just how in hell do you hold your job?

[Yurt]

You just love discrimination, don't you, kitty?

Just how in hell do you hold your job?

actually, how do you hold yours

[Psychoblues]

Actually, I love workers, union members, common folks including negroes and all Americans that you might consider underclass. What is holding you up?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Actually, I love negroes and all Americans that you might consider underclass.

You just want to touch their hair.

[Kathianne]

actually, how do you hold yours

How about I'm not racist, like Sharpton, Jackson, etc. In fact, as the main point of the first post, most conservatives react against racism when it's apparent in the candidates or members.

[Hugh Lincoln]

That's because most conservatives have been trained like dogs by the left.

William Pierce weighed in on this years ago:

Why Conservatives Can't Win


Some of my best friends are conservatives. I sincerely like them and I admire them for their genuine virtues: for their sense of proprietry and personal integrity in an age of corruption, for their independant spirit and their willingness to stand on their own feet in an increasingly paternalistic society.

Therefore, I hope my conservative friends will forgive me for what I am about to write.


A Tragic Choice


There is not the least doubt in my mind that if I were forced to cast my lot with either American conservatism or with the left - old or new - I would choose conservatism.

But, fortunately, none of us is faced with such a limited choice. It would surely be tragic if we were. It would be tragic in the great sense, in the Spenglerian sense. We would be making the choice of Spengler's Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii - who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. We would be choosing what is right and honorable and in accord with the traditions of our race - and certain to fail.

For conservatives cannot possibly emerge victorious from the life-or-death struggle in which they are presently engaged. Although their opponents on the radical left may not attain their own goals - indeed, cannot attain them, because they are based on an erroneous conception of man and Nature - consevatives have proved themselves utterly incapable of preventing the destruction of their own world by those same radical leftists.


Revolutionary Advantage


Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy - an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary view of life.

The advantage has always lain - and always will lie - on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the elementary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other and offensive role.


Besieged vs. Besieger


This defensive-offensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to stratagy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks - he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger - but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.

The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different.


Raceless Nirvana


Thus, the conservative talks of "restoring the Constitution", of halting crime in the streets, of keeping down taxes, of fighting the spread of drugs and pornography, of keeping Big Government in check. And the leftist strives for a utopia in which there shall be no war, no "repression", no "discrimination", no "racism", no bounds on the individual's freedom of action - a raceless and effortless nirvana of "love" and "equality" and plenty.


Never-Never Land


The conservative's goals may seem reasonable enough - and attainable. The leftists goals, on the other hand, lie in a never-never land far beyond the horizon of reality. And that is precisely what gives the advantage to the left.

When the conservative makes some minor gain - getting a "constructionist" on the Supreme Court or a Republican in the White House - he is likely to act as if he had just won the whole war. He sees the achievement of his aims just around the corner, he lowers his guard, and he settles back to enjoy the fruits of imagined victory. But the leftist is never satisfied, regardless of what concessions are made to his side, for his goals always remain as remote as before.

The conservative works in fits and spurts. He reacts with alarm to new depradations from the left, but is satisfied if he is able to fall back, regroup his wagons, and establish a new line of defense. The leftist keeps on pushing, probing, advancing, taking a step back now and then, but only to be able to take three steps forward later.


Defeat by Halves


If the leftist makes new demands - for example, for the forced racial integration of schools or housing - the conservative will oppose them with a plea to maintain "neighborhood" schools and "freedom of association". When the smoke clears, the leftist will have won perhaps half what he demanded, and the conservative will have lost half what he tried to preserve.

But then the conservative will accept the new status quo, as if things had always been that way, and prepare to defend it against fresh attacks from the left with the same ineptitude he displayed in defending the old position.


Evil Ideology


This continually shifting position is almost as great a disadvantage to the conservative as is his chronic inability to grasp the initiative. The revolutionary left has and ideology, evil and unnatural though it may be, and from this ideology come the unity and the continuity of purpose which are indispensable prerequisites for victory.

What can conservatives, on the other hand, look to as fighting credo, and immutable principal for which they are willing to sacrifice all? They have been retreating do rapidly during the last 50 years or so that they have completely lost sight of the earlier ground on which they stood. It has simply receded over the ideological horizon.


"Racists" Are Radicals


Consider race, for example. Half a century ago men like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were spokesmen for the conservative position on race. They argued eloquently, albeit defensively, for the preservation of America's racial identity by maintaining strict barriers against miscegination, adopting sound immigration controls, and applying eugenic standards to the problem of population quality. Today no "responsible" conservative would be caught with the books of either of these men in his living-room bookcase, for by present conservative standards they are both "racists" - hence, "radicals" rather than safely respectable conservatives.


Saving the Constitution

Is there any granite outcropping in the midst of shifting sands - any firm common ground on which conservatives can rally?

The defense of the Constitution perhaps?

The Constitution no longer exists, except as a scrap of paper in the National Archives. Its relevance became nil when it was no longer able to serve the purpose it's authors intended for it.

Insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are quite different undertakings today than they were 200 years ago. Even such a fundamental portion of the Constitution as its ironclad guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms has proved to be as worthless as the paper it was written on. Nor has the Constitution's explicit ban against legislators who give aid and comfort to our enemies served to prevent the United States from becoming a hotbed for treason.


Free-Enterprise Pitfall

How about rescuing the American free-enterprise system from the evil machinations of Big Government?

As a matter of fact, the free-enterprise system was still relatively intact during the period when alien forces subverted our government and took over our country, and it cannot be said that free-enterprise slowed them down even one little bit. The who gained control of our biggest newspapers and our motion picture industry and our radio and TV networks did so with the aid of free-enterprise, rather than in spite of it.


More than Economics

These comments should not be considered a condemnation of free enterprise per se, nor a belittling of the importance of economic problems in general; more than one nation has gone to ruin through economic mismanagement. The point is that America's problems today go far deeper than any Constitutional or economic reforms can hope to cure or even substantially ameliorate.

The youth of America are smart enough to recognize these things for themselves, and, consequently, are not to be blamed for having few tears to shed for the demise of either the Constitution or laissez-faire capitalism.


Fanatics Needed


The left can find plenty of misguided young fanatics willing to set themselves afire or blow up a police station in order to further the cause of "equality" or "peace". But the idea of young men and women assembling bombs in candle-lit cellars to put an end to the progressive income tax or social security reductions is simply ridiculous.

Until conservatives can offer something more inspiring, not many young Americans will rally to their standard.

Conservatism's two principle failings, lack of a spirit of aggresive activism and lack of any clearly defined ideological basis, go hand in hand. The one cannot be had without the other.


Ultimate Goals


In the words of an outstanding anti-communist leader: "The lack of a great, creative idea always signifies a limitation of fighting ability. A firm conviction of the right to use each and any weapon is always bound up with the fanatical belief in the necessity in the victory of a revolutionary new order on this earth."

"A movement which is not fighting for such ultimate goals and ideals will never seize upon the ultimate weapon"...and , needless to say, will never emerge victorious from a struggle with an opponent who is so motivated.


Revolutionary vs. Revolutionary


Though conservatism cannot win against the left, a new revolutionary force, with the spiritual basis that conservatism lacks, and advancing with even more boldness and determination that the forces of the left, can win!

That new revolutionary force is being built now. Its ranks are being filled with diciplined, idealistic young Americans.

They have examined and found wanting both drugs-and-sex libertinism of the left and the economic libertinism of the right.


A New Order


They are fighting for a new order in American life, based not on the fads and whims of the moment, but on the fundamental values of race and personality - values which once led Western man to the mastery of the earth and which can yet regain that mastery for him and lead him on to the conquest of the universe.

They know that the time is long past when the conservative rhetoric or conservative votes might have saved the day. They understand that America's salvation must now come from young men and women of revolutionary spirit and outlook who are through talking and voting and are instead working toward the day when they can seize the true enemies of our people by the hair of their heads and slit their throats.

[Kathianne]

William, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of race separation, but you knew that. Just in case, I'll remind you of my perspective:

* I believe we all belong to various social groups; for example I'm a parent, teacher, friend, sister, aunt, Catholic, Republican (of a sort), a volunteer, an alumni, a student, etc. Within some of these groups I'm close to other members, in some mere acquaintance or colleague.

* We don't get to choose our family. Some members are have many things in common with us, some very different. Arguments sometimes arise, but in general 'they are family', so we hang together at least in a basic way.

* Friends on the other hand, we choose and are chosen. I think the 'glue' in general are the basics of human relations: shared values, socioeconomic group or at least acceptance of the norms of that group, sense of humor, interests, etc. Often times these are people that also belong to more than one of the same social groups from my first point.

* Race just doesn't fit into one of my choices for people I interact with. I've friends that are black, Asian, Hispanic. What we have in common are facets of the above. For a fact I have much more in common with them than I would the sort of folks that hang out at Stormfront or at revival meetings. I do not doubt I'd have little in common with someone of a different race that hated whites, Catholics, or had no interest in politics or education.

* Bottom line for me is 'like to like' but it's way more than race or religion or education, etc.

[Hugh Lincoln]

These are all fair points and probably adopted by many.

Racial separation, for me, is not an absolute goal, but there is absolutely no reason why it can't be 'on the table' for discussing how we're going to solve the problem of racial dischord. What if we had racial separation, and it lead to peace and prosperity? I think it's funny to reflect that the first 'integrationists' were SLAVE DEALERS! There might have been some "racial separatist" saying, no, kidnapping millions of black Africans isn't a good idea, but he was drowned out, apparently.

Short of racial separation, I believe that whites are a unique group that share enough characteristics that they are entitled to 1) conceive of themselves as a group, 2) advocate for themselves as a group and 3) survive as a group. We obviously don't have that today. But all other groups not only have this right, they're encouraged to pursue it... at our expense! Not fair. Example: we should oppose the Iraq war, as whites, because we are the ones dying for it, but it advances another group's goals (Jews/Israel). We should oppose immigration as whites because it displaces us with a group (Hispanics) who do not share our goals and values. We should oppose affirmative action because it directly hurts us. And so on.

You say we don't choose family, but do choose friends. What of our nations? In many cases, the government FORCES US TO ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE WE DO NOT WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH, as with forced integration, school desegretation, laws against discrimination in housing and employment, and so on. Do you defend this? On what grounds? I am against this. If we truly all love each other as races, then surely people would naturally choose to associate regardless of race. There would be no need for constant lawsuits, diversity training seminars, etc. Did you know that the number of racial discrimination cases filed in America has gone up, not down? If we're all getting along so well, why is this?

And look at this presidential campaign. Look at how race is becoming the big issue of the campaign. I mean, if it's so touchy and sensitive, is that really evidence that race DOESN'T matter? Or that it DOES?

The truth is that races don't naturally come together. In fact, they run screaming in the other direction. Their associations are often chosen for them: you sit in class or work with a black person because of choices that were made for you, not by you. I'm sure there are some examples to the contrary, but they are not the rule. They are the exception.

You say you have friends of all races, and you might. But in my experience, whites who say 'race doesn't matter to me' aren't quite telling the whole story. My wife has a black friend from college who she sees, with the rest of the group, maybe once every two years. I guess she could proclaim based on this that she 'has black friends.' But most are white. And so on. I even see some whites deliberately seeking out blacks, etc. just to say they're not racist (a woman at my office is like this).

To me, race is a naturally-occurring phenomenon like flowing water. You can dam it up, but the dam will eventually break. We are wise to go with nature's flow, I think, instead of playing God.

Good discussion, appreciate your responses.

[Kathianne]

These are all fair points and probably adopted by many.

Racial separation, for me, is not an absolute goal, but there is absolutely no reason why it can't be 'on the table' for discussing how we're going to solve the problem of racial dischord. What if we had racial separation, and it lead to peace and prosperity? I think it's funny to reflect that the first 'integrationists' were SLAVE DEALERS! There might have been some "racial separatist" saying, no, kidnapping millions of black Africans isn't a good idea, but he was drowned out, apparently.

Short of racial separation, I believe that whites are a unique group that share enough characteristics that they are entitled to 1) conceive of themselves as a group, 2) advocate for themselves as a group and 3) survive as a group. We obviously don't have that today. But all other groups not only have this right, they're encouraged to pursue it... at our expense! Not fair. Example: we should oppose the Iraq war, as whites, because we are the ones dying for it, but it advances another group's goals (Jews/Israel). We should oppose immigration as whites because it displaces us with a group (Hispanics) who do not share our goals and values. We should oppose affirmative action because it directly hurts us. And so on.

You say we don't choose family, but do choose friends. What of our nations? In many cases, the government FORCES US TO ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE WE DO NOT WISH TO ASSOCIATE WITH, as with forced integration, school desegretation, laws against discrimination in housing and employment, and so on. Do you defend this? On what grounds? I am against this. If we truly all love each other as races, then surely people would naturally choose to associate regardless of race.

But they don't. In fact, they run screaming in the other direction. Their associations are often chosen for them: you sit in class or work with a black person because of choices that were made for you, not by you. I'm sure there are some examples to the contrary, but they are not the rule. They are the exception.

You say you have friends of all races, and you might. But in my experience, whites who say 'race doesn't matter to me' aren't quite telling the whole story. My wife has a black friend from college who she sees, with the rest of the group, maybe once every two years. I guess she could proclaim based on this that she 'has black friends.' But most are white. And so on. I even see some whites deliberately seeking out blacks, etc. just to say they're not racist (a woman at my office is like this).

Good discussion.
Actually my friendships with all 'non-whites' goes back to high school. I've told you before that I have neighbors who are black, Asian, Hispanic. They are not friends, I do not send them cards or meet them for coffee or drinks. I do say 'Hi!', so do they. When my kids were younger, they'd yell at them for playing ball too close to a house, I feel comfortable doing the same. When my youngest told one of them she 'wasn't his mom', she hustled down here to tell me he back talked. Needless to say, that was the last time.

Why are they my neighbors? Probably because my parents had enough money back when to help me make a substantial downpayment so I could buy my home. Most of my neighbors are married, regardless of race. They expect their kids to behave a certain way, which is the same basics I expected of my kids. They have as much or more education than I and make more money. They've never 'looked down' on me.

If my kids were closer in age to theirs, may we have become friends? Probably or possibly. I've worked a lot ever since I moved here.

Now to get to some of your points. I'm against affirmative action, have been for at least 20 years. I think that government programs that are set up to benefit minority businesses are wrong. I don't think that their should be discrimination based on race, religion, or gender.

I don't think separation is the answer to the above problem, I think action along the lines of what was done with amnesty for illegals makes more sense. I think you might be surprised at who you might find as allies. Just a guess.

[gene430]

DUH -- Read this forum if you need more proof that Republicans are predominantly racist.


As this election process moves forward, let's remember who brings in race and gender. As I watch now, I see Democrats skirmishing on race and some small gender card playing. As of now, the Republicans seem to only talk about economy and how skirmish on how many times can you say "Ronald Reagan".

Let's wait and see in the general election who is the first to bring race/gender in the discussion. I know who my money is on.

[Trigg]

As this election process moves forward, let's remember who brings in race and gender. As I watch now, I see Democrats skirmishing on race and some small gender card playing. As of now, the Republicans seem to only talk about economy and how skirmish on how many times can you say "Ronald Reagan".

Let's wait and see in the general election who is the first to bring race/gender in the discussion. I know who my money is on.

Right now I'd say the ones making a huge issue about race is the MSM. I wonder if they can point out a few more times how much of the black vote is going to Obama? Ever since the comments about lilly white Iowa and New Hampshire and how they were surprised how many votes Obama got, wow whites aren't voting only white. Seems black are though and the MSM keeps bringing it up.

[Classact]

No question about it. And they are anti worker, anti union for freemarket workers, anti women, anti anything that isn't old white men that are just trying to give a little something to their kids.Anti worker, in what way, conservatives like to create jobs. We don't think anyone should have a union if everyone doesn't have a union... to allow some to have a union while others have no union would be discrimination and unfair to those without the union. Anti women, then we must all come from liberal women or we would be extinct.

Conservatives simply want everyone to earn respect, work hard and get ahead without government assistance. We are a very compassionate group of people that truly care for unfortunate but we prefer to give a hand up in stead of a hand out.

The Democratic Party is made up of splinter groups from anti war, environmental, unions to race groups that expect something in exchange for their vote. Now the DP is recruiting another block group of voters... My black friend from Las Vegas tells me that all the workers in the casinos that voted Democratic were illegal and they openly flaunt being illegal. I have no reason to doubt my friend do you? Why would the illegal Mexicans support the Democratic Party? Why does the Democratic Party demand SCHIP (your tax dollars) support illegal Mexican children? They will send it to President Bush once again as a campaign tool to get more illegal Mexican votes... vote for Democrats and we'll have illegal Mexican health care on its way in days!

[Little-Acorn]

Well, let's see.

Republicans fought against racism and slavery in the Civil War, and the Republican president signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Democrats opposed them massively on both measures.

A greater percentage of congressional Republicans voted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.

Today, countless cases exist where Democrats have held that minorities (blacks, Hispanics etc.) cannot succeed without race-based laws and government assistance - a ploy that Republicans resist.

Yup, sure sounds to me like the Republicans are the ones who consider blacks and other minorities inferior, ayup.

:lol:

[Hugh Lincoln]

Well, let's see.

Republicans fought against racism and slavery in the Civil War, and the Republican president signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Democrats opposed them massively on both measures.

A greater percentage of congressional Republicans voted to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats.

Today, countless cases exist where Democrats have held that minorities (blacks, Hispanics etc.) cannot succeed without race-based laws and government assistance - a ploy that Republicans resist.

That picture has changed. Today, Democrats are the "rainbow coalition" and Republicans are the party of whites. Sheer numbers bear that out. The percentage of blacks who voted for W actually went DOWN from that of his father's --- 9 percent to 7 percent, or something like that.

I think the whole "Robert Byrd was in the KKK" line of argument from Republicans is just retarded. It's a way for white Republicans to ease their white guilt and preen as "good guys" in today's multicultural climate.

Who cares? Do you think blacks would give a damn if they were a part of something deemed all-black? Hell, they'd be proud!

[Kathianne]

That picture has changed. Today, Democrats are the "rainbow coalition" and Republicans are the party of whites. Sheer numbers bear that out. The percentage of blacks who voted for W actually went DOWN from that of his father's --- 9 percent to 7 percent, or something like that.

I think the whole "Robert Byrd was in the KKK" line of argument from Republicans is just retarded. It's a way for white Republicans to ease their white guilt and preen as "good guys" in today's multicultural climate.

Who cares? Do you think blacks would give a damn if they were a part of something deemed all-black? Hell, they'd be proud!

WJ, it must suck that both parties are in essence anti-discriminatory. Those are the facts though, 2008.

[Little-Acorn]

That picture has changed.

Actually it hasn't. Democrats still maintain that blacks can't make it without racist laws and government assistance - a claim they never make about whites as a group.

Democrats have been using the "we'll give you more goodies" line for nearly a hundred years, to buy votes from everyone who will swallow it. Coupled with strident insistence that blacks can only make it with govt help, this has been a winning formula for them. But not for blacks, who have mostly remained in the same condition as before the Democrats started promising them things. The so-called "War on Poverty", Welfare, and other such programs are directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of black families, marooning them in poverty and government dependence.

Now, more blacks are starting to leave the Democrat party as they realize that Democrats have never benefitted them, only made promises. There are still a lot who buy the Democrat line dispite its chronic failure, but they are starting to wise up.

The Democrat party is far more the home of racism than the Republican party - a fact that hasn't changed in more than a hundred years.

[Dilloduck]

Actually it hasn't. Democrats still maintain that blacks can't make it without racist laws and government assistance - a claim they never make about whites as a group.

Democrats have been using the "we'll give you more goodies" line for nearly a hundred years, to buy votes from everyone who will swallow it. Coupled with strident insistence that blacks can only make it with govt help, this has been a winning formula for them. But not for blacks, who have mostly remained in the same condition as before the Democrats started promising them things. The so-called "War on Poverty", Welfare, and other such programs are directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of black families, marooning them in poverty and government dependence.

Now, more blacks are starting to leave the Democrat party as they realize that Democrats have never benefitted them, only made promises. There are still a lot who buy the Democrat line dispite its chronic failure, but they are starting to wise up.

The Democrat party is far more the home of racism than the Republican party - a fact that hasn't changed in more than a hundred years.

Which is exactly why Obama is doomed. He may not be black enough for blacks but white people certainly think he is. What kind of excuse is a black going to have to for his failure if a black was ever elected president? It is racial treason for blacks to succeed in a white man's territory. Some dude like 'Puff diddy' has a better chance.

[manu1959]

DUH -- Read this forum if you need more proof that Republicans are predominantly racist.

this coming from the party that says....

elect the frist woman...

elect the first black man....

too funny....

[Psychoblues]

Let's see, now?!?!?!?!?!??! Last I checked the Republicans have only offered up old white men for their consideration. The Dem's, however, have a more diverse field and constituency. I wonder if the MSM might check in on race/gender issues that are not race/gender issues? It makes for GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!



As this election process moves forward, let's remember who brings in race and gender. As I watch now, I see Democrats skirmishing on race and some small gender card playing. As of now, the Republicans seem to only talk about economy and how skirmish on how many times can you say "Ronald Reagan".

Let's wait and see in the general election who is the first to bring race/gender in the discussion. I know who my money is on.

Who is your money on? You can share amongst friends, can't you?

[Nukeman]

Let's see, now?!?!?!?!?!??! Last I checked the Republicans have only offered up old white men for their consideration. The Dem's, however, have a more diverse field and constituency. I wonder if the MSM might check in on race/gender issues that are not race/gender issues? It makes for GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!




Who is your money on? You can share amongst friends, can't you?

You Know psyco you are soo full of it. if you look at history and see what party actually has voted in women to congress and senate you will see that they are actually pretty even however the FIRST woman elected to the congres was on a Republican ticket...


1917 Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, entered the U.S. House of Representatives, the first woman ever elected to Congress. She served from 1917 to 1919 and again from 1941 to 1942; a pacifist, she was the only lawmaker to vote against U.S. entry into both world wars.

Note the year in question, I would say a VERY progressive party to say the least....:poke:

[theHawk]

Actually, I love workers, union members, common folks including negroes and all Americans that you might consider underclass. What is holding you up?

LOL, tell us pb, do you usually call black folks "negroes" to their face?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Now, more blacks are starting to leave the Democrat party

Really? What's the source on this? My stats are saying blacks remain as solid a bloc of Democratic votes as ever.

As for the rest of your argument, dude. Go to any black area and set up a "switch to the Republicans!" information booth. See what happens. PLEASE.

[actsnoblemartin]

are we supposed to force black people and women to vote for us?

Perhaps, we could do a better job with our message but common does it really matter if a black man or a white woman is elected if they do a bad job.

my point is: were not voting for a race or a gender, thats shallow, perhaps, i misunderstand your point?

feel free to clue me in.


Let's see, now?!?!?!?!?!??! Last I checked the Republicans have only offered up old white men for their consideration. The Dem's, however, have a more diverse field and constituency. I wonder if the MSM might check in on race/gender issues that are not race/gender issues? It makes for GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!




Who is your money on? You can share amongst friends, can't you?

[manu1959]

Let's see, now?!?!?!?!?!??! Last I checked the Republicans have only offered up old white men for their consideration. The Dem's, however, have a more diverse field and constituency. I wonder if the MSM might check in on race/gender issues that are not race/gender issues? It makes for GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Who is your money on? You can share amongst friends, can't you?

is color gender and age your three defining metrics upon which you vote?

very enlightened....