Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 18, 2017, 10:04:45 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  Why is it always the race card?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: Why is it always the race card?  (Read 5931 times)
pepper11
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 722
United States


View Profile
« on: August 07, 2012, 09:52:52 am »
Ignore

Today Priorities put out a hard hitting ad on Bain and Romney put out a hard hitting ad on welfare reform. Both hard hitting. Both probably not completely true and probably unfair. Whatever, it's politics.  But why this recurring theme with Dems calling out race baiting on any ad they don't like. It is ridiculus. Just because Obama is black doesn't mean we can't talk about welfare (reform) for an entire election cycle.
Logged

PM Econ: 4.26
PM Soc: -1.22
xavier110
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1015
United States


P P
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2012, 10:37:36 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
Logged
ColonelSanchez
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27376
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2012, 10:38:06 am »
Ignore

The race card is pulled by us Republicans too...for example: "You want to end the war? Israel will die. YOU MUST HATE JEWS!", and of course, "Affirmative Action is apartheid against white people!".

Logged

A Hybrid of Pat Buchanan and Bob Dylan.

pepper11
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 722
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2012, 10:54:55 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.
Logged

PM Econ: 4.26
PM Soc: -1.22
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1742


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2012, 11:14:03 am »
Ignore

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12595
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2012, 11:14:14 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
NO to theocracy, NO to Roy Moore.
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1742


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2012, 11:28:43 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.


Oh, so Pat Buchanan said that? Well it all makes perfect sense then, never mind.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13223
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2012, 11:37:51 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.
Logged

Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12595
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2012, 11:45:42 am »
Ignore

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too.  He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it).  If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma.  (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 12:15:35 pm by Oldiesfreak1854 »Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
NO to theocracy, NO to Roy Moore.
Rhodie
Full Member
***
Posts: 245
South Africa


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2012, 11:49:01 am »
Ignore

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."


This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.


So you think he should have ignored gross examples of incompetence and waste like this? I'm sorry, but welfare reform is much needed, and was even more so back then.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:


A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.


Yeah but to be brutally honest, the Democrats have nothing in common anymore with their 19th century counterparts.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 11:50:55 am by Rhodie »Logged

Economic score: +6.19
Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12595
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2012, 11:57:14 am »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.
People who treat blacks like victims who can't succeed on their own are the ones who are really acting like racists.  That's how Democrats initially started winning the black vote in the 1930s, and they're still doing it.  One of FDR's slogans used to advertise the New Deal to blacks during his presidency was, "let Jesus lead me and welfare feed me."  Since then Democrats have played this to their advantage another way by suggesting that Republicans who call for welfare reform and cracking down on fraud in the system are using racist "dog whistles" and "code words."
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
NO to theocracy, NO to Roy Moore.
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14632


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2012, 12:01:16 pm »
Ignore

When Newt Gingrich campaigned against Barack Obama as "the food stamp President" just a few months ago, it was totally untainted by any racial implication, right.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14632


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2012, 12:05:47 pm »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

That is only slightly more credible than John Edwards explaining away his support for Rielle Hunter and flies in the face of all evidence as to how the Southern strategy actually worked.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12595
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2012, 12:33:00 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."


This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.


So you think he should have ignored gross examples of incompetence and waste like this? I'm sorry, but welfare reform is much needed, and was even more so back then.

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.
The Southern Strategy was not meant to stoke racist fears through code words or otherwise.  According to Pat Buchanan, the architect of the Southern strategy, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the racists and segregationists in the Democratic Party:


A few Republicans like Ed Gurney and Jesse Helms may have pandered to racists, but the vast majority did not.  Furthermore, it would have made no sense for Nixon to do that in the '68 campaign because of Wallace's independent candidacy.  As Theodore White wrote in his 1968 campaign edition of The Making of the President, Nixon automatically conceded racist voters to George Wallace (p. 424, quoted in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past).  But anyway, back to the main point: I think the reason that Democrats use the race card so effectively is because they have done such a good job of hiding their party's shameful, 150+ year history or racism (including support for slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, and segregation) from the public and smear Republicans, the party that was founded to end slavery and fight for greater freedom and equality for all races (especially blacks) as racist using phony evidence of racism in the Southern strategy (including an oft-cited but never verified quote from Lee Atwater) and claiming that the segregationist Dems all became Republicans (when, in fact, the only high-profile segregationist to do so was Strom Thurmond.)  Simply put, they know that charges of racism and race-baiting are taken very seriously by the public and that they can get away with it.


Yeah but to be brutally honest, the Democrats have nothing in common anymore with their 19th century counterparts.

I'm not saying they do.  But doesn't the history matter?  And it wasn't just 19th century Democrats; segregationist Democrat Fritz Hollings of South Carolina was serving in the Senate as recently as 2004.  In 1993, he made a comment about black potentates from Africa at the Law of the Sea conference getting "a good square meal in Geneva" instead of eating each other, suggesting that cannibalism was normal for them.  He has also referred to Mexicans as "wetbacks" and to a fellow Senator who was Jewish as "the Senator from B'nai B'rith."  Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan who filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was serving in the Senate as recently as the time of his death in 2010.  In a 2001 interview on Fox News Sunday, he repeatedly used the term "white nig**r."  Al Gore Sr., a former Democratic Senator from Tennessee and the father of former Vice President (and the Democrats' 2000 presidential nominee) Al Gore, was also a strong segregationist who helped lead the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  None of them (or any other high-profile segregationist Democrat except Strom Thurmond) ever became Republicans.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 12:34:54 pm by Oldiesfreak1854 »Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of
her citizens cannot cure.
NO to theocracy, NO to Roy Moore.
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9539
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2012, 12:35:38 pm »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.
Logged

There is a lot of humor to be mined from this as the mind of LBJ in the body of an 18 month old baby girl is quite hilarious.

19:08   oakvale   keep your furry horror out of here please

Alfred is the Atlasian equivalent of a malevolent deity.

stegosaurus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 628
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 1.83

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2012, 12:41:26 pm »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

Define 'we'. I've never disenfranchised a black person and do not know of a single person who has. I certainly wasn't alive during the Civil War and Civil Rights eras. I don't feel as though I owe any particular community because of what people who share my skin color did to said community well before my years. Again who is 'we' that horribly oppressed the black community for hundreds of years? Perhaps you should take it up with them.
Logged

old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1742


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2012, 12:52:35 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, but the issue is often brought up by Republicans not as an effort to start a thoughtful dialogue but as a means to divide white against black, at least in the south. And the hyperbole they seem to use about people on welfare doesn't help the situation either.

In 1976 Ronald Reagan gave a stump speech about a woman on the south side of Chicago (obviously black) who was the ultimate welfare queen.

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

This kind of rhetoric only stokes fear in white people about black people on the welfare system. Somebody who is uneducated might think that all people on welfare live like this and game the system, not understanding that she is an extreme exception.

So when a Republican decides to talk like an adult about welfare instead of trying to scare people then I'll change my mind. But in today's GOP the topic is pure race bait.

There are a lot of Irish Catholics on the south side of Chicago too.  He was talking about people who abuse the system, not blacks (as not all blacks are on welfare and not all of them who are abuse it).  If he was trying to pander to racists, it apparently didn't work very well, because after he lost the nomination to Gerald Ford, he endorsed him in the general election, and Ford lost every Southern state except Virginia and Oklahoma.  (Incidentally, Ford did carry Illinois, and he was more of a moderate Republican, but whether Jimmy Carter and the Democrats would have carried the South with Reagan as the GOP nominee is anybody's guess.)

This is why it's called the dog whistle. When politicians make these kinds of charges, they never explicitly single out black people, so if they're accused of racism, they can defend themselves by saying they never mentioned race. Yet many people understand the context clues and it gets the message across to the right people. It's a brilliant strategy, really.

In 1980, Reagan also gave a high profile speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where 3 civil rights workers were killed, and talked about states' rights (another dog whistle term). That year he won every state in the deep south except Georgia. So yeah, Reagan knew exactly what he was doing.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
Rhodie
Full Member
***
Posts: 245
South Africa


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2012, 01:43:24 pm »
Ignore

Well, campaigning on welfare is basically how the GOP played its southern strategy and stoked racist fears. Welfare and race are inherently intertwined in people's minds. That's why.

So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now? If a higher proportion of blacks are on welfare as is implied by the democratic response with the race card, it would be an injustice to them to not attempt to make the program better. But i guess that would just be silly, being rational and all.

Exactly. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson make it seem like society "owes" black people something. That's not true, of course. We don't owe them one single thing.

Right, because society doesn't owe black people a single thing. It's not like we horribly oppressed them for hundreds of years.

Let us examine that claim for a moment. By 'we', do you mean, certain white people. I'm afraid I don't buy the view that all white people should feel shame and guilt for what happened to black people, as we didn't do it collectively, it was the actions of certain people in society. Whilst I believe what happened was wrong in America, I don't personally feel any guilt for their treatment.
Logged

Economic score: +6.19
Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33754
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2012, 02:13:47 pm »
Ignore

One of FDR's slogans used to advertise the New Deal to blacks during his presidency was, "let Jesus lead me and welfare feed me."

Care to provide a cite for your claim?  All I have been able to find is that it was indeed a Depression-era slogan, but one coined by blacks themselves in thanks for no longer literally starving.  I came across nothing to indicate it was a party-invented slogan, let alone one used by FDR himself.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2012, 02:16:20 pm »
Ignore


So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.
That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
Rhodie
Full Member
***
Posts: 245
South Africa


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2012, 02:45:47 pm »
Ignore


So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.
That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?


People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.
Logged

Economic score: +6.19
Social score: +2.61

"Freedom. And Justice. If you have those two, it covers everything. You must stick to those principles and have the courage of your convictions"

mondale84
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1307
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.30

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2012, 03:02:04 pm »
Ignore


So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.
That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?


People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.

Oh yes because poor David Duke is a victim and is only reacting to the horrible attacks of the left.
Logged


"There are no men like me. There's only me."
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58547
India


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2012, 03:04:15 pm »
Ignore

There are no corpses of prejudices in America, though there are corpses of past worse states of affairs.
Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7753
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2012, 04:15:33 pm »
Ignore


So because of something that may have happened 50 years ago, we cant have a civil and rational debate on the issue now.
That's what the evidence suggests.
Of course, it's not as if the "50 years ago" event that begun to slowly emerge 55 years ago could potentially be deemed to have ended before the 80s.

The current party system owes a huge debt to times of opener majority group racism and of now-ended legalized apartheid. Racist sentiments among the majority group, including Democratic voters, are still ridiculously pervasive but also semi-sorta-tabooized (a lot less than "semi", really. But partly tabooized), and are unspeakable in the political arena because that's necessary for this desperate fiction that you've moved on when you haven't.

What, then, do you expect?


People will never move on and forget about the predjudices of the past if the corpse of those predjudices is constantly being dug up and publically displayed. Proclaiming that every white person should feel personally guilty about what happened to 'x' minority only engenders resentment and fosters extremism. There'd be no Pauline Hanson, David Duke etc if the left stopped rubbing this pervasive guilt in peoples faces.

Oh yes because poor David Duke is a victim and is only reacting to the horrible attacks of the left.

And it's not abut "guilt." It's about responsibility. White privilege is real.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16110
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2012, 04:28:44 pm »
Ignore

Today Priorities put out a hard hitting ad on Bain and Romney put out a hard hitting ad on welfare reform. Both hard hitting. Both probably not completely true and probably unfair. Whatever, it's politics.  But why this recurring theme with Dems calling out race baiting on any ad they don't like. It is ridiculus. Just because Obama is black doesn't mean we can't talk about welfare (reform) for an entire election cycle.

If "welfare reform" implies its effective abolition, then call it that.

So far, President Obama hasn't advocated making welfare more generous or easier to get. Maybe no black person could get away with it.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines