Political discussion thread

Replying to both of your posts, Todd: Logan's right that republicans did a lot for civil rights before the 60s.  And you're right that they weren't really conservative, by our standards anyway, for much of their history.  "Republican" in the past meant something much different than "republican" now.  The point I was originally trying to make was that it's unfair to equate fiscal conservatism with racism, because both of them have affected the republican party, but they entered the party separately, at about the same time.  This makes it easy to deduce that fiscal conservatism is racist, because at the same time as the republican party became fiscally conservative, it also moved away from civil rights.

Right now, I wouldn't call the republican party racist at all.  There are, of course, some republicans that are racist, but from my experience, most of them aren't.  Saying that republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous (nobody here has said that, but it's a common accusation that some liberals make); you might as well say that democrats didn't like Bush because they were racist against white people!  The policies that many republicans support that are often perceived as harming blacks are policies that most republicans believe will eventually help black and white people, at least ones with work ethic and integrity.  Historically, you can say that republicans' resistance to affirmative action programs has a root in the influx of white southerners into the party in the 60's, but republicans have good reasons to oppose affirmative action, also.

I meant that they moved away from enacting any more civil rights legislation, not that they tried to take back what they'd put into effect.

Of course, you could argue that their ceasing to push for civil rights legislation resulted from it not being necessary any longer, not from the influx of former southern democrats into the party.  I don't know enough about the issue to answer that question.

They turned away from the passing of further civil rights legislation.

Is that more clear?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Replying to both of your posts, Todd: Logan's right that republicans did a lot for civil rights before the 60s.  And you're right that they weren't really conservative, by our standards anyway, for much of their history.  "Republican" in the past meant something much different than "republican" now.  The point I was originally trying to make was that it's unfair to equate fiscal conservatism with racism, because both of them have affected the republican party, but they entered the party separately, at about the same time.  This makes it easy to deduce that fiscal conservatism is racist, because at the same time as the republican party became fiscally conservative, it also moved away from civil rights.Right now, I wouldn't call the republican party racist at all.  There are, of course, some republicans that are racist, but from my experience, most of them aren't.  Saying that republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous (nobody here has said that, but it's a common accusation that some liberals make); you might as well say that democrats didn't like Bush because they were racist against white people!  The policies that many republicans support that are often perceived as harming blacks are policies that most republicans believe will eventually help black and white people, at least ones with work ethic and integrity.  Historically, you can say that republicans' resistance to affirmative action programs has a root in the influx of white southerners into the party in the 60's, but republicans have good reasons to oppose affirmative action, also.

I gotcha. I was kind of disturbed by the amount of territory my post meandered through, although there was a core focus that I'll explore some other time perhaps. I'm definitely not a fiscal conservative, so maybe you will find it nice to hear that I don't think that fiscal conservative automatically equals rascist, racial conservative, or even social conservative. I do think that this is true for some Republicans, Tea Partiers or fiscal conservatives, as I've seen it in certain extended family members. But this is the grand old question of how much we can generalize from token to type. I assure you that I begin with the notion that someone is operating in good faith from a given philosophy that deserves no more notoriety than what its internal coherence and real world descriptive coherence merits.

Democrats mainly leveled this charge of being anti-black when they find Republican/Conservative comments inexplicable to any other explanation. I heard a particular instance of this today on XM Radio Left. A host talked about how the opposition had frequently made the charge that Obama is going to take away their guns. Now everyone knows that he didn't take any such position in the campaign and didn't do anything in his first term. Gun control advocates are nothing but disappointed in his silence and inaction. Knowing all this, the host of the show (I don't remember the name of the show, sorry) finds it so inexplicable that he can't imagine the charge that Obama will take their guns away as being anything other than they're alarmed that he's black. I lean toward this conclusion myself. The only other thing Democrats or liberals can do is throw their hands up and just say conservatives are an enigma.

Edited by HackettFan - December 16 2012 at 20:00

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Right now, I wouldn't call the republican party racist at all.  There are, of course, some republicans that are racist, but from my experience, most of them aren't.  Saying that republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous Is it?  When McCain got the nomination, before Sarah Palin, he was getting a pitiful 1,000 average at his rallys.  After Sarah Palin, 10,000 plus, and people were shouting "kill the n***er!" and the number of death threats against Obama was so alarmingly high that the secret service (Bush's secret service) talked to the Obamas, prompting Michelle's statement "Why would they try to make people hate us?"  Now in 2012 the ridiculously circumstantially evidence based "Obama's 2016" that concludes that Obama is a Muslim who hates America was the most popular documentary ever - it beat many fictional movies in the box office.  Now, after the election we have conservative news sources making a big deal out of the fact that there were counties that voted 100% for Obama and are also 100% black, and concluding that Obama won because black people are racist - my point would be: are you SURE it's because THEY are, or maybe because YOUR party completely alienated them with your rhetoric?  So, are you SURE that saying republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous?

And a large number of Democrats like Obama because he's black.

Your point?

I assume Dtguitarfan was in all of those McCain rallies. He could never be saying all of that only by hearing on the Huffington Post or MSBNC. I'm sure he was first-hand witness in all of those rallies. 

”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

“I’ll have them n****rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”

~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)

thellama73 wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: They turned away from the passing of further civil rights legislation. Is that more clear? What further civil rights legislation? Black people have the same rights as white people. I don't understand what further civil rights legislation would look like.

I acknowledged that point in my post.  I think you're right.  But don't forget that segregation continued into the 70's even after the civil rights act was passed, so some might have thought it necessary to pass more specific laws dealing with scenarios where segregationists might have found loopholes.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - December 16 2012 at 21:39

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Right now, I wouldn't call the republican party racist at all.  There are, of course, some republicans that are racist, but from my experience, most of them aren't.  Saying that republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous Is it?  When McCain got the nomination, before Sarah Palin, he was getting a pitiful 1,000 average at his rallys.  After Sarah Palin, 10,000 plus, and people were shouting "kill the n***er!" and the number of death threats against Obama was so alarmingly high that the secret service (Bush's secret service) talked to the Obamas, prompting Michelle's statement "Why would they try to make people hate us?"  Now in 2012 the ridiculously circumstantially evidence based "Obama's 2016" that concludes that Obama is a Muslim who hates America was the most popular documentary ever - it beat many fictional movies in the box office.  Now, after the election we have conservative news sources making a big deal out of the fact that there were counties that voted 100% for Obama and are also 100% black, and concluding that Obama won because black people are racist - my point would be: are you SURE it's because THEY are, or maybe because YOUR party completely alienated them with your rhetoric?  So, are you SURE that saying republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous?

Sorry for the triple post, I didn't want to have an unwieldy giant one trying to respond to everyone at once.

I have never heard any racist rhetoric from Palin, so I'm not sure what her impact on McCain's campaign has anything to do with republicans being racist.  I actually went to a Tea Party rally, and heard absolutely no racist rhetoric or racist comments from the audience.  The only offensive thing I saw the entire time was a couple rude shirts depicting liberal congressmen, as the old saying goes, "having their heads up their asses."

The fact that Obama received threats does not surprise me.  Its common for controversial presidents and canditates to be threatened.  Both sides do it.  Todd Akin got death threats because of things that he said, so I can imagine that Obama would be threatened because of what he said. 

I haven't seen 2016, but from what I've heard about it (reviews, info from people who saw it) there's nothing racist about it.  It simply tried to find a motive for Obama's actions. 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: HackettFan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Replying to both of your posts, Todd: Logan's right that republicans did a lot for civil rights before the 60s.  And you're right that they weren't really conservative, by our standards anyway, for much of their history.  "Republican" in the past meant something much different than "republican" now.  The point I was originally trying to make was that it's unfair to equate fiscal conservatism with racism, because both of them have affected the republican party, but they entered the party separately, at about the same time.  This makes it easy to deduce that fiscal conservatism is racist, because at the same time as the republican party became fiscally conservative, it also moved away from civil rights.Right now, I wouldn't call the republican party racist at all.  There are, of course, some republicans that are racist, but from my experience, most of them aren't.  Saying that republicans dislike Obama because he's black is ridiculous (nobody here has said that, but it's a common accusation that some liberals make); you might as well say that democrats didn't like Bush because they were racist against white people!  The policies that many republicans support that are often perceived as harming blacks are policies that most republicans believe will eventually help black and white people, at least ones with work ethic and integrity.  Historically, you can say that republicans' resistance to affirmative action programs has a root in the influx of white southerners into the party in the 60's, but republicans have good reasons to oppose affirmative action, also. I gotcha. I was kind of disturbed by the amount of territory my post meandered through, although there was a core focus that I'll explore some other time perhaps. I'm definitely not a fiscal conservative, so maybe you will find it nice to hear that I don't think that fiscal conservative automatically equals rascist, racial conservative, or even social conservative. I do think that this is true for some Republicans, Tea Partiers or fiscal conservatives, as I've seen it in certain extended family members. But this is the grand old question of how much we can generalize from token to type. I assure you that I begin with the notion that someone is operating in good faith from a given philosophy that deserves no more notoriety than what its internal coherence and real world descriptive coherence merits. Democrats mainly leveled this charge of being anti-black when they find Republican/Conservative comments inexplicable to any other explanation. I heard a particular instance of this today on XM Radio Left. A host talked about how the opposition had frequently made the charge that Obama is going to take away their guns. Now everyone knows that he didn't take any such position in the campaign and didn't do anything in his first term. Gun control advocates are nothing but disappointed in his silence and inaction. Knowing all this, the host of the show (I don't remember the name of the show, sorry) finds it so inexplicable that he can't imagine the charge that Obama will take their guns away as being anything other than they're alarmed that he's black. I lean toward this conclusion myself. The only other thing Democrats or liberals can do is throw their hands up and just say conservatives are an enigma. That's an illogical conclusion.  He's wasn't able to find an explanation for those conservatives' beliefs, so he made one up.  That is not logical thinking; that's slander that has no basis in reality.  Most likely, the real reason that many conservatives think Obama is going to take away their guns is that 1. Gun control is associated with the democratic party and 2. I'm pretty sure he voted for gun control as a senator, correct me if I'm wrong and 3. He seems to be subtly pushing toward gun control in wake of the recent shooting.  These are all much more logical and likely explanations for many conservatives' beliefs than is racism.

There is nothing illogical about proposing a possible explanation for something and then making that be your conclusion because you've eliminated all other possibilities you identify. This is the basis of statistics and an awful lot of scientific reasoning. (It's not the case that we know there are black holes because we've observed them. We haven't). I agree it might still be wrong. It might be both right and wrong, because we're talking about a complex system, the broad population of Republicans and conservatives. I think the alternative explanations you propose are the best way to respond. Your point number 3 is very odd because that only just happened, so it can't explain any charges prior to it. In addition, what you call "subtly pushing" for gun control liberals call being reluctant. As one additional sidenote too, the constitution provides a right to bear arms. It does not provide a right to bear all arms or magazine clips of unlimited capacity.

Edited by HackettFan - December 16 2012 at 22:47