Racists tend to be Pro-Bush?

[suetoneous]

The democratic party is a de facto hate group against WCM (white christian males). Naturally, with the republican party being the only other legitimate political party [w/ a chance to win elections], it’s going to attract white males…even the fringe elements.

The democratic party is like a ship w/out a ruder…or a sail.

Hilary Clinton for President… LOL

What a pathetic political party… No person, particularly WCM, should belong to a political party so thoroughly un-American.

 

[jamesrage]

OK this might offend some people but I'm trying my best not to generalize all that support Bush. I am finding that a good number of people who are for Bush are very racist. Sometimes when I debate with people in certain chatgroups and even video games, these people who are pro-bush will make some stupid racial comment that is mostly unintelligable. My Uncle and his family are very conservative and all very prejudiced. My mother still keeps in touch with them though my Dad refuses to ever talk to them. I go over there as little as possible. Everytime I do, they say so much stupid ****, making jokes about "milk duds" and ranting about "scum that washed up on our shores." and of course they are avid fans of Bush and also I am their direct opposite politically and I often can't help but debate with them about politics. I usually get my points across but, alas, I'm outnumbered. So anyways, I'm wondering why is this? Do you think that its just their close minded attitude or something else?

I think it ludacris that poeple think that the majority of Bush voters are racist.This is just as sad as liberals who label minorities who vote for Bush as uncle toms.

 

[Stormflame]

Here is the perfect example of the way a liberal thinks. Here we have the thread starter comparing Republicans to gay-haters and racist-scum because WE are on the otherside of the fence. Limbaugh is God. He said that this is how you all think.
Just keep in your little corner and I'll keep in mine.....lol.
Good grief!:shock:

 

[Martyr_Machine]

Franklin Roosevelt headed up and implemented one of the most horrible
racist policies of the 20th Century: the Japanese Internment Camps
during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and knowingly enacted
Japanese Internment through the use of presidential Executive Orders
9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These orders
single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000 law
abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of
them natural born second and third generation American citizens.
Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of
an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's
internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's
concentration camps.

Tell me anout Robert Byrd....William Fullbright (Clinton's mentor)..Smathers, Long, Thurmond...George Wallace, Lester Maddox...etc...

Do you remember that 40% of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Acts vs 20% of Republicans?

Wouldn't you call Al Sharpton a racist?

No group has a monopoly on prejudice.

Lets not forget Lincoln (albeit a republican) who is worshiped as a hero by democrats, yet actively spoke out against equal rights for blacks, and defended the "right" of the northerm states to own slaves.

 

[ludahai]

I beg to differ. 62% were born in the United States

Copy of Executive Order 9066:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/executiorder9066.html

Summary of violations:

http://bss.sfsu.edu/internment/rightsviolated.html

Encyclopedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066

And from our own government (122,000 my friend)

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=74

76,000 of these victims were BORN in the United States of America.

According to your own link, fewer than 70,000 were U.S. citizens were interred. THe original claim was that more than 120,000 U.S. citizens were interred. That is simply not true.

 

[ludahai]

Lets not forget Lincoln (albeit a republican) who is worshiped as a hero by democrats, yet actively spoke out against equal rights for blacks, and defended the "right" of the northerm states to own slaves.

HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Martyr_Machine]

HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

The amendment that freed the slaves was not ratified until after his death, and the emancipation proclamation only outlawed slavery in the confederate states, it did nothing to rid the north of slavery (yes, slavery was common in the north to)

Lincoln did not start campaigning against slavery until halfway through the civil war, whe he realized he could use the issue to rally support. Not that he needed it, anyone who spoke out against him was thrown in prison anyway.

 

[ludahai]

The amendment that freed the slaves was not ratified until after his death, and the emancipation proclamation only outlawed slavery in the confederate states, it did nothing to rid the north of slavery (yes, slavery was common in the north to)

Lincoln did not start campaigning against slavery until halfway through the civil war, whe he realized he could use the issue to rally support. Not that he needed it, anyone who spoke out against him was thrown in prison anyway.

Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery into the territories north of the Missouri Compromise line. If you read the entire text of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglass debates rather than just a couple of snippets, you would get a more complete picture of the struggle Lincoln (like many other Americans) had with this issue.

Slavery was NOT common in the north in the late 1850s. There were four border states that did not seceed when the South did, but even in those states, the number of slaves was comparatively small. Many Northern states had outright bans on slavery. One such ban was the reason for the Dred Scott Case in the first place.

By the 1850s, slavery was not supported by most northerners. Did they see Blacks as equals? No. Did Lincoln see Blacks as equals? No. But Lincoln made it VERY CLEAR in while debating Senator Douglass that he felt that there was no reason Blacks shouldn't be granted the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

As for the emancipation proclamation. Lincoln had no legal authority to declare slaves in the non-rebelling states free. The South was a military zone, and Lincoln, as commander in chief, had certain rights and authority there he didn't have in the non rebelling states.

The President has absolutely no legal role in the passing of an Amendment to the Constitution. The Congress and state legislatures/conventions have the sole rule in passing an amendment. Since a Southerner murdered President Lincoln, he did not live to see the passage of the amendment.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Um. . .James. First of all, where in my post did I ever say that the MAJORITY of conservatives are racist? Did you even bother to read it?

And Storm, if you want to try and attack a liberal, don't mention Rush Limbaugh cause hes a jerk. I think you need to read more carefully also.

 

[suetoneous]

Integration was tried w/ the black race i.e. political integration between 1869 and 1877. It failed miserably. In 1895 Plessy vs Ferguson separated white and black, simply solidifying what ws already in existence. Anyone who bothers to read this landmark case will see the court ws in no way trying to be divisive. It ws not willing to allow itself to be used as a social engineering instrument.

In 1964 the democratic party ‘created’ compulsory integration (civil rights), basically nullifying Plessy/Ferguson, and thereby committed what is by far the most egregious abuse of the legislative system in US history. The democratic party hs paid the price for using white christian males as their hate group, as the vast majority of WCM now vote republican.

The democratic party has been bought by the liberal jews- as evidenced by Clinton two supreme court appointees (Breyer/Ginsberg).


40 years of compulsory integration has been proven to be a demonstrable FAILURE...Time to move on!

 

[ElGringo17]

PhotonicLaceration wrote:

I think the Republican party really needs to drop that anti-gay crap.

Wow, how anti-Christian, anti-heterosexual and intolerant and bigoted of you!

Let me guess, you're homosexual?!

I think the Republican Party needs to step up the anti-homosexual crap!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

to the original post

K, I suppose that you could label me pro-Bush cuz I will admit that I voted for him, however, if you have seen my responses in the National Socialists threads you'll remember that I'm about as far from racsist as you can get, less of course you consider callin the nazi a cr**t to get a rise out, of him as being racsist, secondly, I don't recall African Americans being granted such prominent rolls under the Clinton Administration, as they have under the Bush administration, thirdly, if you recall the Reps fought a bloody war to free the slaves, if you don't agree I'm posting a link about Lincoln at the bottom entitled Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite, or consemate statesmen, fourthly, if you recall yet again the man standing in front of the school during desegregation wasn't a Rep, he was infact a Dem, or Dixiecrat as I like to call them, oh, and old Sheets Byrd was a member of the KKK. And finally take a look at some of the political cartoons of Ms. Rice that have been drawn by the supposudely tolerant P.C. libs then compare them to other overtly racist cartoons made during reconstruction in the south and up until the time of the fight for civil rights.

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/articles/abelincoln.html

 

[ludahai]

Not to disparage Brother Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) because of what he believed, but one thing he was always loyal to was his home state of Georgia. Was he a racist? Sure, he was. Most Southerners were. Is his participation in the Confederate government excusable, no. However, he was loyal to his home and to his family, and to some people, that is still virtuous.

 

[Connecticutter]

I've had a different experience with them, but yeah, I get your point. I think that people in general like to believe that people that disagree with them ideologically are bad people, and every negative aspect that they can possibly imagine the other side manifests.
Thus why liberals and conservatives both believe that the other side is racist, why some conservatives believe that liberals hate God, kill babies, or we believe that conservatives are idiots who can't understand the simple concept that people have different opinions, when in fact neither side as a whole is ideologically "wrong", but instead interprets facts differently and puts different amounts of importance on different facts, and chooses to listen to different sources, and thus draw different conclusions.
And although some conservatives are oversimplistic, and some liberals are elitest, the actual state of things is far from each side's representation of itself or each other.

Yeah, I think that about says it. I totally agree.

And Storm, if you want to try and attack a liberal, don't mention Rush Limbaugh cause hes a jerk. I think you need to read more carefully also.

Actually, I think the real problem with the post is that the limbaugh comment was virtually unreadable. Maybe unreadable isn't the word - but it was hard to figure out what he was trying to say. However, I think the poster was trying to say that liberals shouldn't assume that conservatives always march in lcok step with their intellectual leaders. I don't think you believe that, but I know some liberals do. The question of Rush Limbaugh and whether he is a "jerk" is in my opinion irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

According to your own link, fewer than 70,000 were U.S. citizens were interred. THe original claim was that more than 120,000 U.S. citizens were interred. That is simply not true.

That's not what I said. 62% were BORN in the U.S. You don't have to be born in the US to be a citizen.

 

[ludahai]

That's not what I said. 62% were BORN in the U.S. You don't have to be born in the US to be a citizen.

I am saying that fewer than 70,000 were US citizens according to one of the websited you liked.

It is true that you don't to be born in the US to be a citizen, but VERY few is any Issei were U.S. citizens and a not inconsequential number of Nisei renounced U.S. citizenship when they couldn't answer yes to Question 27 or 28.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I am saying that fewer than 70,000 were US citizens according to one of the websited you liked.

It is true that you don't to be born in the US to be a citizen, but VERY few is any Issei were U.S. citizens and a not inconsequential number of Nisei renounced U.S. citizenship when they couldn't answer yes to Question 27 or 28.

OK...we continue to argue about numbers...70,000 or 120,000....when we should be talking about the gross violation of these people's rights just because they were of another race.

Many Issei, American citizens that were born in Japan, refused to fight against their families in Japan....but the Nissei supported the United States because the USA was, after all, their country. You should remember that some of the most decorated soldiers in World War II were Nissei, who practically had to fight their way to get into the service.

Japanese internment was nothing more than suppression of civil liberties, and not a wartime measure as some suggest. Had it been a wartime measure, we would have done the same with German-Americans and Italian-Americans. But these were white, of course.

Don't forget that after Pearl Harbor, anything Japanese was despised in this country. Have you seen the documentaries and cartoons of that era? Only Nazi Germany's propaganda and their virulent characterization of Jews could be compared to such xenophobia.

Every American has certain inalienable rights that no government can take away. It doesn't matter if it was 70,000 or 7. ONE is one too many.

 

[suetoneous]

The internment of the Japanese ws just as much for their own protection [from angry Americans]...

The citizen Amendment, the 14th, did not envision the massive non European immigration after 1868. The words of the 14th Amendment were the product of their time. It’s main purpose ws to integrate the black race INTO the white race. As I said, it didn’t work. The words of the 14th Amendment were/are simply wrong.

There is NO EXAMPLE of an integrated ’society’ in human history… prior to 1964 – the year the dem. party forced integration on everyone w/ their civil rights laws.. If so, I would sure like any ‘feel-good’ liberal to tell me where on earth it [an integrated society] existed…Our integration ‘experiment’ is a FAILURE.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

The internment of the Japanese ws just as much for their own protection [from angry Americans]...

The citizen Amendment, the 14th, did not envision the massive non European immigration after 1868. The words of the 14th Amendment were the product of their time. It’s main purpose ws to integrate the black race INTO the white race. As I said, it didn’t work. The words of the 14th Amendment were/are simply wrong.

There is NO EXAMPLE of an integrated ’society’ in human history… prior to 1964 – the year the dem. party forced integration on everyone w/ their civil rights laws.. If so, I would sure like any ‘feel-good’ liberal to tell me where on earth it [an integrated society] existed…Our integration ‘experiment’ is a FAILURE.

For their own protection?:rofl Now, there's an idea!!! I suppose we should put all the citizens who live in high crime areas into concentration camps for their protection....how about the elderly?

And as for the 14th Ammendment not intended for U.S. citizens of the 20th Century....well....if you are going to split hairs, I can tell you that our Founding Fathers' did not intend to apply "Liberty and Justice" for all either..... that's the beauty of our system.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
:shock:

 

[suetoneous]

And just where are the “high crime areas?” Rhetorical question, so no need to answer… And our elderly would not need “protection” if we the dem. party hadn’t abused our legislative system w/ the compulsory integration laws.

Interring the Japanese was the right thing to do. Live w/ it!

Again, there is NO example of an ‘integrated’ society in HUMAN history…prior to 1964. This experiment, forced on [white christian males] by the democrats so as to gain a political edge i.e to create dependent groups, is a FAILURE.

BTW, here is the SECOND SECTION of your glorious 14th Amendment...

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

 

[suetoneous]

Had the South accepted the 14th Amendment...there never would hv been a 15th Amendment. And the dem. party never would have even bothered in 1964 to launch their social engineering experiment (civil rights laws).

 

[MiamiFlorida]

And just where are the “high crime areas?” Rhetorical question, so no need to answer… And our elderly would not need “protection” if we the dem. party hadn’t abused our legislative system w/ the compulsory integration laws.

Interring the Japanese was the right thing to do. Live w/ it!

Again, there is NO example of an ‘integrated’ society in HUMAN history…prior to 1964. This experiment, forced on [white christian males] by the democrats so as to gain a political edge i.e to create dependent groups, is a FAILURE.

BTW, here is the SECOND SECTION of your glorious 14th Amendment...

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

I fail to see the relevance of your second section. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Why the question of where the high crime areas are? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

And....what do integration laws have to do with the elderly?

"Interring" the Japanese was the right thing to do? Well, I suppose that when a Japanese person dies, "interring" him is the proper thing to do. No argument there.

Prior to 1776 there were no examples of a truly democratic society either....and we've had our bumps along the road, but I would say the "experiment" as a whole has been a success.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Had the South accepted the 14th Amendment...there never would hv been a 15th Amendment. And the dem. party never would have even bothered in 1964 to launch their social engineering experiment (civil rights laws).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was the er....Republicans who passed it.

 

[suetoneous]

Miami, yeah I caught “interring” after the 10 min clock expired…LOL meant ‘interning’


“I fail to see the relevance of your second section. Perhaps you can explain it to me.”

Sure. The 1st section of 14th Amendment defines a citizen. The 2nd section ws clearly written to allow the South (white males) to ‘exclude’ black males from the voting process. The South refused to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1866 and their reps. were then EXPELLED from Congress… and the southern states DISSOLVED…The 2nd section of the 14th Amendment recognized our natural, God-given, human limitations.

Had the South agreed to the 14th, there NEVER would hv been a 15th Amendment (the 15th Amendment nullified the use of ‘race’ as a means to exclude people (blacks) from the franchise.

The Amendments to our Constitution are NOT words dictated to our legislators by GOD. Writing words down on a piece of paper and calling it a ‘law’ has its limitation - remember the 18th Amendment?

”Why the question of where the high crime areas are?”

I’ll connect the dots for you… In 1964 the dem. party created a social engineering experiment, civil rights, or compulsory integration – comfortable in the knowledge that they could write ANY WORDS down on a piece of paper, call it a law, and just like puppets on a string, mk white males do it (integrate). But like ANY experiment, there are CONSEQUENCES. The consequences of this social engineering experiment are many, but, in particular, it produces extremely high crime rates e.g. over 800,000! homicides in the last 40 years, 420,000 from 1.9% of America’s population! The elderly are the easiest prey for the burgeoning criminal element i.e. non-white males.

“Prior to 1776 there were no examples of a truly democratic society either.”

Our Founding Father didn’t create a democracy, they created a Republic…



“Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was the er....Republicans who passed it.”

Yes, I am ‘painfully’ aware of this fact:doh The republicans had NO constitutional right to expel a political party to accomplish their agenda. However, you are actually making my point miami, don’t you see that? The 14th and 15th amendments were/are in fact illegal. They should hv been excised from the Constitution before the 20th century rolled in...

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Miami, yeah I caught “interring” after the 10 min clock expired…LOL meant ‘interning’


“I fail to see the relevance of your second section. Perhaps you can explain it to me.”

Sure. The 1st section of 14th Amendment defines a citizen. The 2nd section ws clearly written to allow the South (white males) to ‘exclude’ black males from the voting process. The South refused to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1866 and their reps. were then EXPELLED from Congress… and the southern states DISSOLVED…The 2nd section of the 14th Amendment recognized our natural, God-given, human limitations.

Had the South agreed to the 14th, there NEVER would hv been a 15th Amendment (the 15th Amendment nullified the use of ‘race’ as a means to exclude people (blacks) from the franchise.

The Amendments to our Constitution are NOT words dictated to our legislators by GOD. Writing words down on a piece of paper and calling it a ‘law’ has its limitation - remember the 18th Amendment?

”Why the question of where the high crime areas are?”

I’ll connect the dots for you… In 1964 the dem. party created a social engineering experiment, civil rights, or compulsory integration – comfortable in the knowledge that they could write ANY WORDS down on a piece of paper, call it a law, and just like puppets on a string, mk white males do it (integrate). But like ANY experiment, there are CONSEQUENCES. The consequences of this social engineering experiment are many, but, in particular, it produces extremely high crime rates e.g. over 800,000! homicides in the last 40 years, 420,000 from 1.9% of America’s population! The elderly are the easiest prey for the burgeoning criminal element i.e. non-white males.

“Prior to 1776 there were no examples of a truly democratic society either.”

Our Founding Father didn’t create a democracy, they created a Republic…



“Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was the er....Republicans who passed it.”

Yes, I am ‘painfully’ aware of this fact:doh The republicans had NO constitutional right to expel a political party to accomplish their agenda. However, you are actually making my point miami, don’t you see that? The 14th and 15th amendments were/are in fact illegal. They should hv been excised from the Constitution before the 20th century rolled in...

-Contrary to the popular (and erroneous) myth that has been going around lately in political talk shows...and therefore in forums such as these.......a Republic and a Democracy are not mutually exclusive of each other.

I submit to you one of the various defininitions of Democracy:

Merriam Webster: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

-I still don't see the relevance to the Nissei.

-Thank you for "connecting the dots" for me. I have to confess that I had a pretty good idea of where you were going to take me....Now, back to your conclusion that crime has increased because of integration and equality:

Have you looked at the same increases during those same 40 years in other countries with negligible black populations?

Did you know that Denmark and Finland, for example, have much higher total crimes per capita than the U.S.?....or that countries such as France, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands and Australia have a higher percentage of crime victims than we do?