• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: Cons are more racist than Libs

26 X World Champs said:
Do you think it was Liberals who were pro-segregation, Jim Crow, Poll Tax etc? The people who thought that way then are in the Conservative Party today, not in the Liberal Party.

Translation: I can't prove anything I said with any sort of evidence, so I'm going to put forth an Appeal to Belief and pray that it gets accepted as truth.

This does not mean that Conservatives as a whole are racially biased, obviously. It does mean that far more Conservatives are biased than Liberals...the whole point of this thread...and indisputable. What logic do you employ that would prove that Liberals are more biased than Conservatives?

Well, it's obviously disputable. You STILL haven't put out any evidence other than "Well, obviously cons are more racist!"

Repeat...not all Conservatives are biased, racist or any less open minded than Liberals are re race....but there are far more Conservatives who are than Liberals. My god! How can you be Liberal and a racist? It makes no sense? It would be like saying that Pro-LIfers are more Pro-Choice than Pro-Choice people...it would be untrue and silly.

Are you really asking that question? The world is full of logical inconsistencies.
 
aquapub said:
1) A hysteric like Che calling something "scientific" is highly suspect.

2) From where I sit, this conclusion is backwards as hell. It is conservatives who are always arguing for basing hiring, school admissions, etc. on merit rather than race. It is always liberals who feed blacks their baseless paranoid bigotry and tell them they are too inferior to achieve anything without race based handots.
The elitist snobs at the core of the left (the Arianna Huffingtons, John Kerrys, Ted Kennedys, etc.) are far more racist than the normal, mainstream, middle America at the core of the right. See "Democrats are for the rich" thread for facts to back up that description. ;)

The left's racism can best be seen when they find a black person it is ok to unleash their bigotry on like Condi Rice and Colin Powell. The openly racist slurs, smears and cartoons about blacks who dare to be too responsible and self-respecting for the left are very revealing.

in Bold: And what, Blacks are too stupid to do anthing about it, but just lie back and accept it? Are you saying, that those relative few blacks that do vote, when they do, are too dumb to think for themselves? WOW, i don't even think you realize how racist and bigoted the statement you made was.
 
ptsdkid said:
Lets not forget that it was a Republican in Abe Lincoln that first cut the shackles from the negros' ankles.
The republican party back than supported a larger government and are thus most likely tied into the current DNC. Besides it was the 1800's uhhh... I don't think you can draw much parralels anymore:roll:.

btw are you old? like a grandpa or something 'cuz only old people call black people negros.
 
RightatNYU said:
Translation: I can't prove anything I said with any sort of evidence, so I'm going to put forth an Appeal to Belief and pray that it gets accepted as truth.

liberals are always associated with the idea of being progressive. i.e. no drug laws, abortion, gay marriage. Conservatives on the other hand are ususally more traditional. i.e. merry christmas in the town square, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage. Now since blacks were thought of as inferior before the 1960's, it was progressive to call blacks equal. My point is that the cons are traditional and thus would support jim crow because they had been used those laws and had been used to the entire physcology of being racist. The libs who are progressive would be the opposite
 
While conservatism does not always equal racism, it cannot be denied that conservatives have resisted every social reform from woman's rights to black civil liberties all throughout time. Every year, these conservatives die out to be replaced by progressive liberals who allow common sense to rule. That is why conservatism is a doomed to fail idealogy, at least in terms of social liberties.
 
Che said:
ptsdkid said:
Lets not forget that it was a Republican in Abe Lincoln that first cut the shackles from the negros' ankles.
The republican party back than supported a larger government and are thus most likely tied into the current DNC. Besides it was the 1800's uhhh... I don't think you can draw much parralels anymore:roll:.

btw are you old? like a grandpa or something 'cuz only old people call black people negros.

I couldn't agree more. The same thing with the lynchings we're talking about. It was the early 1900's. I don't think you can draw parallels anymore.
 
Che said:
liberals are always associated with the idea of being progressive. i.e. no drug laws, abortion, gay marriage. Conservatives on the other hand are ususally more traditional. i.e. merry christmas in the town square, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage. Now since blacks were thought of as inferior before the 1960's, it was progressive to call blacks equal. My point is that the cons are traditional and thus would support jim crow because they had been used those laws and had been used to the entire physcology of being racist. The libs who are progressive would be the opposite

I repeat:

Aside from your own opinion, and the theory that "Well, it was like this 50 years ago so it must be the same now," do you have any proof? No.
 
RightatNYU said:
I repeat:

Aside from your own opinion, and the theory that "Well, it was like this 50 years ago so it must be the same now," do you have any proof? No.

obviously there is no proof saying that conservatives rightfully endorse the KKK but the study that I provided and the logic of traditionalism vs. progressivism are close.
 
Che said:
obviously there is no proof saying that conservatives rightfully endorse the KKK but the study that I provided and the logic of traditionalism vs. progressivism are close.

The study you provided...which hasn't been peer reviewed, means nothing, and raises questions of researcher bias...

And your own interpretation of an incredibly general and untested idea. Appeal to Belief.

Forgive me if i'm not convinced enough to support overly broad blanket statements like "cons are more racist than libs"
 
"Cons are more racist than Libs"

This would be true. Anyone that say's otherwise would be denying the truths of reality.

The very true rational that leads us down the road that many of the Islamic world is clinging to passed down traditions that do not work in the 21st century also leads us to believe that the "Conservative" side of our country looks to the past for guidance as well. This "past" can be anything from historical events to inherited religious moral values. Deep rooted beliefs can stagnate a society from progressing.

For example: The future is stem cell research whether individuals (or Parties) want it to be or not. Who is blocking this inevitable occurence?

However, this being said, the liberal side of our country is morally decrepit and merely hide behind a mask of equality and "freedom" while sacrificing values to achieve it.

Both are dirty. "GySgt for President."
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
While conservatism does not always equal racism, it cannot be denied that conservatives have resisted every social reform from woman's rights to black civil liberties all throughout time. Every year, these conservatives die out to be replaced by progressive liberals who allow common sense to rule. That is why conservatism is a doomed to fail idealogy, at least in terms of social liberties.

LMFAO, Ya buddy save for the fact that it was the Democrats who stood in the way of civil rights legislation proposed by the Republican party.

Affirmative action actually breaks down people into races so now rather than judgements passed on talents or abilities people are now being deciphered by their race in, effect the liberals have turned racism into a state sponsored institution.
 
The article states....
“Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.”

Brain scanners? Ha ha I wonder if more of the poolsters were Democrats?

Who made up the list of questions?

The article says,
"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

No ones denies there are racist people in America. To think otherwise would be ignorant and naïve.

Let us be reminded that….Republicans are the ones who fought to end slavery while the Democrats fought for States Rights and keeping slavery alive. Even after slavery it was the Democrats who fought for segregation and as a percentage more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did DEMOCRATS. Taht is fact.

Democrats have been feeding minorities negative information about Republicans and racism for years.

The Republican Party platform the year that Lincoln was elected President sought to prevent the spread of slavery. After Lincoln freed the slaves Black voters SUPPORTED the Republican Party for years. In 1956 Eisenhower received well over 33% of the Black vote. After slavery came the battle over segregation. In 1963 George Wallace was quoted as saying, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Wallace was a racist and a DEMOCRAT.

In 1954 Orville Faubus attempted to stop desegregation in a public school in Little Rock.

He was a racist and a Democrat.

It was Eisenhower who sent in police to enforce the rule.

He was a Republican.

J. Edgar Hoover the head of the FBI received permission to wiretap Martin L King Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy gave Hoover permission.

He was a DEMOCRAT.

President Harry Truman once called fellow Congressman Adam Clayton Powell,“That damned ****** preacher.”

He was a Democrat.

Lyndon Johnson said, “I talk everything over with (my wife),” continuing,” Of course…I have a ****** maid, and I talk my problems over with her too.”

He was a Democrat.

Both parties I believe (as has history has shown), are filled with racist politicians. But as far as the party platform, the Republicans are far the ones who care the least what the color of your skin is and focus on what’s important, as Martin Luther King said, ”The content of your character.”
 
http://www.impactnet.org/html/racist_democrats_.html (Is the Democratic Party racist? WorldNetDaily.Com)


"When Senate Democrats successfully blocked three of President Bush's nominees for federal appeals-court judgeships in a 40-hour debate initiated by Republicans, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., told reporters that he would continue to oppose any "Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court."

Now I don't happen to believe Neanderthals ever existed. But, if they did, the implication is they were something less than human – beings lower on the evolutionary scale.

Kennedy was referring to men and woman like Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, a woman, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, a woman, and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman."

Taken from....
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44019 (The Racist Democrats WorldNetDaily.com )
 
LMFAO, Ya buddy save for the fact that it was the Democrats who stood in the way of civil rights legislation proposed by the Republican party.

Affirmative action actually breaks down people into races so now rather than judgements passed on talents or abilities people are now being deciphered by their race in, effect the liberals have turned racism into a state sponsored institution.

Who said anything about democrats? I was talking about conservatives and liberals.



And just for the record I don't support Affirmative Action.
 
doughgirl said:
The article states....

Brain scanners? Ha ha I wonder if more of the poolsters were Democrats?

Who made up the list of questions?

The article says,

No ones denies there are racist people in America. To think otherwise would be ignorant and naïve.

Let us be reminded that….Republicans are the ones who fought to end slavery while the Democrats fought for States Rights and keeping slavery alive. Even after slavery it was the Democrats who fought for segregation and as a percentage more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did DEMOCRATS. Taht is fact.

Democrats have been feeding minorities negative information about Republicans and racism for years.

The Republican Party platform the year that Lincoln was elected President sought to prevent the spread of slavery. After Lincoln freed the slaves Black voters SUPPORTED the Republican Party for years. In 1956 Eisenhower received well over 33% of the Black vote. After slavery came the battle over segregation. In 1963 George Wallace was quoted as saying, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Wallace was a racist and a DEMOCRAT.

In 1954 Orville Faubus attempted to stop desegregation in a public school in Little Rock.

He was a racist and a Democrat.

It was Eisenhower who sent in police to enforce the rule.

He was a Republican.

J. Edgar Hoover the head of the FBI received permission to wiretap Martin L King Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy gave Hoover permission.

He was a DEMOCRAT.

President Harry Truman once called fellow Congressman Adam Clayton Powell,“That damned ****** preacher.”

He was a Democrat.

Lyndon Johnson said, “I talk everything over with (my wife),” continuing,” Of course…I have a ****** maid, and I talk my problems over with her too.”

He was a Democrat.

Both parties I believe (as has history has shown), are filled with racist politicians. But as far as the party platform, the Republicans are far the ones who care the least what the color of your skin is and focus on what’s important, as Martin Luther King said, ”The content of your character.”

Wallace is dead, therefor has no more effect on the Democrats.
Faubus is dead, therefor has no more effect on the Democrats.
Eisenhower is dead, therefor has no more effect on Republicans.
Hoover is dead, therefor has no more effect on Democrats
RFK is dead, therefor has no more effect on Democrats.
Truman is dead, therefor has no more effect on Democrats.
Johnson is dead, and therefor has no more effect on Democrats.

In light of this new information, would it be safe to say that the living democrats bear less resemblance to the dead ones used to bolster your arguement?

Ignorance and Cognitive deficiencies live on, as indicated by the post to which I am responding.

I mean, in this day and age, what person doesn't understand the concept of CHANGE OVER F/CKING TIME!?

For nearly a century, yes democrats were the party of racists, especially after Republicans "won" the civil war. But you know what happened? racist democrats died off (not completely), and I dunno, the famous "I'm signing away the south" statement also pops into my head for some magical reason...

No, it's not really magical, events occur and change things. That is why we pay attention to events after all. Whole books wirtten on events too. Events with related effects, events from one year or period, to another year or period.

Furthermore, and what is MOST important. This thread is about Cons, or Conservatives. Not about Democrats and Republicans. In light of that, it's conservatives that tend to resist change, including racial changes. Unless of course, you are trying to say that the Democrats are the Conservatives of American politics, your post really was a waste of time.

If you waste more of my time responding to any one thing, respond to this:
Since those events have occured, the statements and acts you listed, has ANYTHING else occured between then and now, and if ANYTHING (ANYTHING AT ALL) has occured, has ANY of the ANYTHING effected events and behaviors occuring today?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Affirmative action actually breaks down people into races so now rather than judgements passed on talents or abilities people are now being deciphered by their race in, effect the liberals have turned racism into a state sponsored institution.

It's actually a way of saying we're sorry for all those years that crackers in pickup trucks from your part of the country whiped and enslaved them. When the slaves were emancipated, they had nothing. They started off in a disadvantage. They were poor, uneducated, and didn't know how to survive in the Capitalist American society they were brought up in. So, they continued what they had done all there lives: work on a plantation. Since they were still poor and couldn't afford the type of education that whites were recieving. they were forced to pass this life on to their kids. thus they stay in the hole that was generously dug for them. For years after that, even if they were able to succeed, they were put down by Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Now people realized how what we did was so horrible they try to make it up with AA, then they are called racists by the cons.
 
Last edited:
It's actually a way of saying we're sorry for all those years that crackers in pickup trucks from your part of the country whiped and enslaved them. When the slaves were emancipated, they had nothing. They started off in a disadvantage. They were poor, uneducated, and didn't know how to survive in the Capitalist American society they were brought up in. So, they continued what they had done all there lives and then since they were still poor were forced to pass it on to their kids. Thus they stay in the hole that was generously dug for them. For years after that, even if they were able to succeed, they were put down by Jim Crow laws and lynched. Now people realized how what we did was so horrible they try to make it up with AA, then they are called racists by the cons.

So I guess after we're done "apologizing" to minorities, we should do the same to the whites who got ****ed over.

When people get ****ed over, its the same regardless of what race you are. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of race.
 
FinnMacCool said:
So I guess after we're done "apologizing" to minorities, we should do the same to the whites who got ****ed over.

When people get ****ed over, its the same regardless of what race you are. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of race.

whites who were ****ed over weren't slaves that were whiped and lynched daily.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I don't recall this generation being subjected to slavery.

still they were dug a hole from the moment that they were emancipated. Besides many are still alive who were alive during the time of Jim Crow laws.
 
still they were dug a hole from the moment that they were emancipated. Besides many are still alive who were alive during the time of Jim Crow laws.

Big deal. It doesn't change the fact that they might grow up to be jerk offs and still have an advantage over another person who might be better suited for them.

The reason blacks and hispanics have so many problems is because of the enviorment that they live in. Therefore, instead of simply giving advantages to them which they may or may not deserve, we should focus our attention and resources in helping them out of the enviorment which they are inevitably going to grow up in.
 
back to the article:
For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.
Seems to me that these "whites" were specifically chosen to participate.
Hardly a balanced study IMO. Also, these appeared online - not quite the most random place to find folks. Advertising and searches can be targeted with key phrases that one race might search over another. Racial slurs could be targeted just as easily.
 
FinnMacCool said:
I don't recall this generation being subjected to slavery.

First, a recent, still living often, prior generation was subject to racial discrimination.

Second, AA, noble as it is, will never go away because the largest benefited group, is white women, and they vote.
 
ptsdkid said:
I find liberals to be far more racist than Conservatives. Shall we take two of the more prominent Negro leaders in Jessie (keep hope alive) Jackson, and with Al (I support Tawanna Brawley's lies) Sharpton. Find me one sentence where either of these two have praised or shown support of a white man and I'll vote for Hillary in 2008. Wasn't it Jessie (k.h.a.) Jackson that referred to N.Y.C. as 'Hymietown?'

Liberal leaders like these two try hard to keep the minorities down and dependent on welfare. We all know the liberal platform has been to lobby for the poor, for the down and out, for the homeless by assuming the downtrodden negro of today is no better off than their ancesters on the plantations of servitude. If it isn't Al and Jessie demanding reparations from the white man--then it's Al and Jessie demanding cradle to grave benefits for their people without lifting a finger to help themselves.

Lets not forget that it was a Republican in Abe Lincoln that first cut the shackles from the negros' ankles.

Isn't it ironic that the Bush administration has more negroes in higher positions than any other. And everyone of these leaders got to that position in life without the aid of affirmative action or quota discriminations.

Let's calm it down on the 'negro' talk. Titles such as the United Negro College Fund have those names because of the time context. Its kept that way mostly for the same reason celebrities keep their last name when they get married, that is what people know it as and people may not recognize it if they changed the name. Therefore, using the term in the way you have has a bad connotation and makes you seem 'old-fashioned' to say the least.

Anyways, your comment about Lincoln actually explains why white racists tend to be Republican. They were very different parties back then, it was the Republican/GOP and the Southern Democrats (who were mostly racist). Around the time of civil rights Democrats began to lose popularity and began supporting black civil rights (there's more to it, but this is simplified). As a result many racists abandoned the democratic party and changed to the 'new' republican party (which tended not to support civil rights), therefore the new democratic party began to attract urban, black, and women voters because of their support for civil rights. So the parties flip-flopped.

Not to say that the Republican party is full of racists, but a generation ago, most racists were supporters of the Republican party, and it has made it less civil rights proned.
 
Back
Top Bottom