Can someone explain how Republicans came to be the racists?

[Matt1970]

When just 2 years ago 46% of Mississippi Republicans thought interracial marriage should be illegal , you'll get a reputation for being a bit racist as a party. It doesn't help when you have Presidential candidates that were at one point leading the polls refer to the President as a "nig ... uh...." before catching himself.

It should just flow off the tongue like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PnO6ai0Ktro#t=72

 

[umbrella39]

Deflect deflect deflect dear laughing stock...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When just 2 years ago 46% of Mississippi Republicans thought interracial marriage should be illegal , you'll get a reputation for being a bit racist as a party. It doesn't help when you have Presidential candidates that were at one point leading the polls refer to the President as a "nig ... uh...." before catching himself.

Yeah...Mississippi Republicans represent everything Republicans stand for. And you actually think your really intelligent? Really?

 

[thraashman]

Yeah...Mississippi Republicans represent everything Republicans stand for. And you actually think your really intelligent? Really?

I'm sorry if hundreds of thousands of people aren't enough for you. And I'm certainly more intelligent than you. Then again, that's not a rare feat to accomplish.

 

[Zaap]

1969 called, it wants is post back. Sorry, but if I am going to catch all kinds of hell for mentioning Robert Byrd and the Democrat Senate leader's racism of 3 years ago, bringing up something 44 years ago is not valid.

To say nothing of it being complete bullshit that's more of the one-sided nonsense Democrats have been shoveling for 50+ years.

Democrats have always had a southern strategy. Southern governors as presidents twice now. Southerner and son of segregationist Gore as presidential candidate. Southern running mate for Kerry. Dems are basically full of shit when it comes to the south- they want to win it as badly as anyone else, and up until 2008, they've always blatantly campaigned for it with southern candidates on the ticket.

When they win it, the south magically isn't racist anymore. It's just another part of the country you need in order to win elections.

When they lose it (even after pandering for it with southern candidates) it's all racists. Basically, Democrats are full of shit, as always.

 

[Zaap]

It should just flow off the tongue like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PnO6ai0Ktro#t=72

Or the current VP:

Obama is the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean..."


Democrats= full of shit.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I've been trying to figure this out all day. At what point did Republicans get the reputation of being racist? Was it at the same time Democrats got the reputation of siding with minorities?

I don't know, but do you know about the "Mukakka" incident?

 

[MtnMan]

Most fundy christians are republicans, fundy christians are typically racist.

 

[rudeguy]

I don't know, but do you know about the "Mukakka" incident?

I do not. Even Google doesn't :hmm:

 

[rudeguy]

Most fundy christians are republicans, fundy christians are typically racist.

See...I've never saw that first hand. I know lots of pretty hard core Christian people and I can't think of anything racist about them.

This ties into my Oprah thread...mind me asking what part of the country you are from? In that thread I said that region doesn't matter but maybe it really does?

For reference: I am from Michigan and my family is 2 generations removed from the Amish church.

 

[They Live]

I've been trying to figure this out all day. At what point did Republicans get the reputation of being racist? Was it at the same time Democrats got the reputation of siding with minorities?

Are we talking 1960s? 50s? 1800s?

No trolling please. I really want to figure this out.

Thanks!

When they became the Conservative party.

Let me guess, you think the southern racist pro segregation democrats of the past were liberals, right?

 

[CPA]

When the entire Republican strategy became to appeal to the southern people who were anti civil rights... They became the group of old white men who fought change.

And when was that? Around the time that the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act (1964) or when he was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 40's?

Or was it around the time of the self-admitted racist Democrat Senator James Eastland who stood with Byrd and several other Democrat senators during the filibuster.

Or maybe it was around the time of Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace's tenure - one which was based around segregation and, of course, his infamous inaugural speech where he said, "...and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

You sure you have the right party when it comes to anti-civil rights?

 

[CPA]

When they became the Conservative party.

Let me guess, you think the southern racist pro segregation democrats of the past were liberals, right?

Ahhh, yes, let's change their political leaning to save face. Please, Byrd was a tried and true liberal, who stood with Ted Kennedy in the 70s and was an ardent support of LBJ. You can call them social conservatives all you want, but the fact is they were liberals.

 

[SNC]

OK, I see your point. In my commentary, I tried my best not to infer that guilt by association was in any way attributable to the Repub Party's "image" of being racist as a whole. Instead, I used specifics to deliniate the difference between those folks who belong to the GOP who aren't racist ("the vast majority" as I previously mentioned and reiterated) and those who make it "appear" that way. If you felt I meant that those who are racist would be welcomed into the GOP, then let me assure you I meant no such thing. My reference to "feeling at home" was a convenient choice of words, where by comparison, a gathering of white supremacists would feel absolutely "not at home" in a party that professes to be all-inclusive and champions the cause of undocumented immigrants, people of color, free and open elections (that favor minorities thus the Dem Party) "dovish" foreign policy initiatives and other "liberal" ideological leanings.

Speaking of which, I haven't heard a peep from the GOP as far as their denouncing that small minority of white supremacists who populate their ranks for fear of losing the votes these folks represent. I mean really, where else would these folks go to express their philosophy through the ballot box?

And you seem to purposely ignore the fact that the Repub Party, for whatever reason they deem fit, regularly pass legislation on a unified basis that "at the end of the day" coincidentally(?) discriminates against the poor, people of color and the young who haven't had the chance to be properly indoctrinated and "de-liberalized".



Well, because you post in such general terms devoid of specifics I can either agree with you on the one hand and disagree with you on the other.

But by feeding into the OPs racism, by focusing on white racism is what I am claiming does nothing to further the discussion of racism. Your writings make you sound just as racist as the OP. You can spend a week finding small pockets of white racism in the GOP and continue to post them, someone else can do the same for the other side. A great man once said; "Those that seek only to root out one type of racism is just as racist as those he seeks to expose." The OPs question is flawed, answering that question will only result in wrong answers. As for:

regularly pass legislation on a unified basis that "at the end of the day" coincidentally(?) discriminates against the poor, people of color and the young who haven't had the chance to be properly indoctrinated and "de-liberalized".

When you try to level a playing field so that EVERYONE has the same opportunity and not outcome, you look to those trying to find racism as if you are targeting a group. While I have not associated myself with the republicans for quite some time, this was one of the reasons I joined the party in the first place. The idea that everyone regardless of where they came from or look like, should have the same opportunity as everyone else, not better not worse.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahhh, yes, let's change their political leaning to save face. Please, Byrd was a tried and true liberal, who stood with Ted Kennedy in the 70s and was an ardent support of LBJ. You can call them social conservatives all you want, but the fact is they were liberals.

The irony in that is so profound that you can't possibly understand it.

You just owned yourself and will never realize it. Such is the depth of right wing delusion.

You seem to think that formerly democratic racist white southerners changed their minds rather than changing their party in the wake of the civil rights movement. They didn't, they just found a Repub Party willing to pander to their sentiments when Dems no longer would.

Racism is a very "conservative" value in this country, particularly in the South- it's tradition, the way it's always been, part of the "Lost Cause of States' Rights".

Pavlovian response is just a dog whistle away, and you'll just say "woof!" every time you hear one. You won't even realize that's what's happening.

 

[michal1980]

The irony in that is so profound that you can't possibly understand it.

You just owned yourself and will never realize it. Such is the depth of right wing delusion.

You seem to think that formerly democratic racist white southerners changed their minds rather than changing their party in the wake of the civil rights movement. They didn't, they just found a Repub Party willing to pander to their sentiments when Dems no longer would.

Racism is a very "conservative" value in this country, particularly in the South- it's tradition, the way it's always been, part of the "Lost Cause of States' Rights".

Pavlovian response is just a dog whistle away, and you'll just say "woof!" every time you hear one. You won't even realize that's what's happening.

The left along with the lmsm has repeated the lie so many times you fools actually believe it. And will do everything in your power to continue believing the lie.

The left is the one that's stuck on the pavlovian response.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans aren't racists. They just don't want poor people to vote, have access to medical care, food stamps, or welfare regardless of what color they are. The fact that a huge proportion of the folk in that condition are in that condition because of past racism is immaterial to them. They didn't cause that racism. That was in the past. They don't hate people of color but the whole human race. If you can't earn a living for whatever reason, you're worthless scum. These are the folk with real Christian values, who work their asses off 6 days a week and preen themselves on Sunday imagining the world will be saved by the buck they just dropped in the collection plate. Don't be angry at these scum though. That's just another kind of racism. You never know. One or two may walk into that church and get a wake-up call. The real message is there, after all.

 

[Matt1970]

And when was that? Around the time that the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act (1964) or when he was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 40's?

Or was it around the time of the self-admitted racist Democrat Senator James Eastland who stood with Byrd and several other Democrat senators during the filibuster.

Or maybe it was around the time of Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace's tenure - one which was based around segregation and, of course, his infamous inaugural speech where he said, "...and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

You sure you have the right party when it comes to anti-civil rights?

Owned!! Here, let me sprinkle a little something on top of that ownage.

Here is the Civil Rights vote by party in 1964.

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Republicans aren't racists. They just don't want poor people to vote, have access to medical care, food stamps, or welfare regardless of what color they are. The fact that a huge proportion of the folk in that condition are in that condition because of past racism is immaterial to them. They didn't cause that racism. That was in the past. They don't hate people of color but the whole human race. If you can't earn a living for whatever reason, you're worthless scum. These are the folk with real Christian values, who work their asses off 6 days a week and preen themselves on Sunday imagining the world will be saved by the buck they just dropped in the collection plate. Don't be angry at these scum though. That's just another kind of racism. You never know. One or two may walk into that church and get a wake-up call. The real message is there, after all.

Wow, look at all the hatred on display in this post. How are you any different than those you claim hate others?

 

[Jhhnn]

Owned!! Here, let me sprinkle a little something on top of that ownage.

Here is the Civil Rights vote by party in 1964.

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

And, of course, there's been a wee bit of political realignment since then. The "Solid South" is now solidly Republican, holding the same "values" they've had since the end of the Civil War. Strom Thurmond & Nixon led the charge, but it was Ronnie who really won 'em over in 1980 with talk about "States' Rights" & "Welfare Queens".

That sort of racism has shown itself to be quite virulent, to the point that adherents are the dominant force in the party. Even Kansas Repubs have abandoned their anti-racist ways, casting aside their Civil War Heritage of Freedom & Equality.

 

[They Live]

The left along with the lmsm has repeated the lie so many times you fools actually believe it. And will do everything in your power to continue believing the lie.

The left is the one that's stuck on the pavlovian response.

What lie?

That the democrats have a horrible history of racism? Nobody denies that.

We are just simply pointing out that they were conservatives, not liberals. It's all about the ideology, not the party. The KKK was started by the democrats, sure, but they were never a socially liberal group. They were/are conservative to the bone.

 

[Matt1970]

oops, double post

 

[Matt1970]

And, of course, there's been a wee bit of political realignment since then. The "Solid South" is now solidly Republican, holding the same "values" they've had since the end of the Civil War. Strom Thurmond & Nixon led the charge, but it was Ronnie who really won 'em over in 1980 with talk about "States' Rights" & "Welfare Queens".

That sort of racism has shown itself to be quite virulent, to the point that adherents are the dominant force in the party. Even Kansas Repubs have abandoned their anti-racist ways, casting aside their Civil War Heritage of Freedom & Equality.

Ahh yes, everyone knows the famous buzzwords all mean slavery.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh yes, everyone knows the famous buzzwords all mean slavery.

Straight for obfuscation & denial.

Slavery? Naah. It's a kinder & gentler manifestation of compassionate conservatism, white privilege & superiority- Jim Crow. He's back on tour, singing all his old hits to sold out crowds of good old boys.

 

[Matt1970]

I was going to mention "hidden racism" but I thought even you weren't at the Phokus level. What was I thinking....