Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Reaon # 426 to Hate Dallas (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Reaon # 426 to Hate Dallas
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would it be too much for you guys to believe that the Democratic party truly has a historical problem when it comes to racism that is alive and well today?

Given that, at least to this point, I have proven that the above is true (there's no evidence to the contrary)…

Your list of historical racism by the Democrats may be factually true, but your conclusion is unwarranted, especially the part of “racism that is alive and well today.” You should examine your evidence more closely.

Let me go over, point by point, the last 11 points on your list (since, frankly, I am more concerned with the state of the Democratic party today than 100 years, or even 30 years, ago).

quote:

February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

Nice, but it says nothing about whether Democrats opposed it or not. Says nothing about the Democrats.

quote:

September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

See above comment.

quote:

June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

Which was passed by the Democratically-controlled Congress. So this is demonstrates that Democrats are for minorities.

quote:

August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

See above.

quote:

November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

See above.

quote:

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

This may have been opposed by Democrats since it was part of the Contract With America. But this is not stated, so we cannot count it as a point against Democrats.

quote:

April 26, 1999
Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

IIRC, she was awarded that medal, wasn’t she? And the President was Clinton, a Democrat. So another point for the Democrats.

quote:

January 25, 2001
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

Political slogans doth not racism make. School choice could hurt minorities as much, if not more, than help them. It is still undetermined. I do not concede a point against Democrats for this.

quote:

March 19, 2003
Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

Were Democrats against this? No point.

quote:

May 23, 2003
U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

See above.

quote:

February 26, 2004
Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”

Please cite where the Democratic party defended Rep. Brown in this issue. Until you do, I will only concede half a point against Democrats, since she was a Democrat.

So, by my count, out of 11 points that supposed show that Democrats are against minority races, 1/2 a point shows this, 6 1/2 do not show one was or another, and 4 shows that they support minorities.

Your proofs that show that “the Democratic party truly has a historical problem when it comes to racism that is alive and well today” actually show that they are at least as good as the Republicans when it comes to supporting minorities in the last 30 years. And I’m sure your list does not include any purely Democratic measures.

So there is no reason to discuss “Why would blacks be almost 100% supportive of a party that has done everything it could to over the last 150 years to prevent their equality?” when you have not shown this to be true in at least the last 30 years.

[ November 07, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the wake of the Civil War the Republican party was the natural party for most Republican voters because Lincoln ended slavery. The Democrats had a large proportion of Southern senators with a vested interest in keeping the cotton-picking status quo.

Somehow all this changed in the sixties. LBJ got behind civil-rights and the Democrats became a true party of the left. Can anyone provide more illumination on how the partisan lines morphed?

[ November 07, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Cytania ]

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Your list of historical racism by the Democrats may be factually true, but your conclusion is unwarranted, especially the part of “racism that is alive and well today.” You should examine your evidence more closely.

Let me go over, point by point, the last 11 points on your list (since, frankly, I am more concerned with the state of the Democratic party today than 100 years, or even 30 years, ago).

You're removing context when you do that. Each one of these could be taken out of context and construed in the way you do it. You should provide the historical context otherwise you're just cherry picking data points. The point you raise about some of them saying nothing about democrat opposition is a bit of a red herring. Several of the points you try to refute show that historically Republicans have led the anti-discrimination efforts (other show that historically Democrats have opposed them but those are not the ones you address).

To see it alive and well today, look no further than the recent incidents with Steele (oreo cookie throwing). It's not that many democrats come out in support these racist attacks, it's that they ignore it and give it a free pass (like the NAACP has done). Contrast to the treatment of Trent Lott when his comments about Stom Thurmond could only remotely be construed to be racist.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd recommend, if you want that list to be useful, that you provide the numbers - a bill must pass congress, and we need to know who voted for it in congress. A bill must be signed into law by the President, and we need to know if the President did so. If you are trying to show that a "party" is for or against these things, then we need the numbers, and the details.

I'm no friend of the Democrat Party, but Wayward brings up some clear and obvious problems with the list.

If you want to disregard the list, and argue from other foundations, fine. Discard it. Otherwise, more information is required.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They didn't morph. One party has always been about freedom, the other about slavery to the state. Until very recently, that is.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You should provide the historical context otherwise you're just cherry picking data points.
I believe the historical context you are looking for is a sea-change in the Democratic party, where it embraced the Civil Rights movement and incorporated in into their party. IIRC from some previous threads, many Southerns who were against civil rights defected to the Republican party, which seemed to be stronger in supporting state's rights (to allow segregation, in this case).

So, from what I recall from history, I am on the mark. [Smile]

quote:
The point you raise about some of them saying nothing about democrat opposition is a bit of a red herring. Several of the points you try to refute show that historically Republicans have led the anti-discrimination efforts (other show that historically Democrats have opposed them but those are not the ones you address).
I do not understand what you mean here. Please be much more specific.

quote:
To see it alive and well today, look no further than the recent incidents with Steele (oreo cookie throwing). It's not that many democrats come out in support these racist attacks, it's that they ignore it and give it a free pass (like the NAACP has done). Contrast to the treatment of Trent Lott when his comments about Stom Thurmond could only remotely be construed to be racist.
Of course, the oreo incident is black-on-black racism, while Trent's comments were the more traditional white-on-black racism. So there is a subtle difference, although I would not defend either of them.

But characterizing the Democratic party as the major source of racism is too much. After all, did not the Democrats attack Trent for his comments? Why would they do that if they actually support all types of racism? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
You should provide the historical context otherwise you're just cherry picking data points.
I believe the historical context you are looking for is a sea-change in the Democratic party, where it embraced the Civil Rights movement and incorporated in into their party. IIRC from some previous threads, many Southerns who were against civil rights defected to the Republican party, which seemed to be stronger in supporting state's rights (to allow segregation, in this case).

So, from what I recall from history, I am on the mark. [Smile]

quote:
The point you raise about some of them saying nothing about democrat opposition is a bit of a red herring. Several of the points you try to refute show that historically Republicans have led the anti-discrimination efforts (other show that historically Democrats have opposed them but those are not the ones you address).
I do not understand what you mean here. Please be much more specific.

quote:
To see it alive and well today, look no further than the recent incidents with Steele (oreo cookie throwing). It's not that many democrats come out in support these racist attacks, it's that they ignore it and give it a free pass (like the NAACP has done). Contrast to the treatment of Trent Lott when his comments about Stom Thurmond could only remotely be construed to be racist.
Of course, the oreo incident is black-on-black racism, while Trent's comments were the more traditional white-on-black racism. So there is a subtle difference, although I would not defend either of them.

But characterizing the Democratic party as the major source of racism is too much. After all, did not the Democrats attack Trent for his comments? Why would they do that if they actually support all types of racism? [Wink]

Why would they attack Trent Lott? Because he's a Republican. Democrats are held to one standard and Republicans another. If the oreo cookies were thrown at a Democrat, it would still be making headlines, Democrats would be calling for resignations and apologies, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be on the case.

[ November 07, 2005, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: sfallmann ]

Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gary,

The point you raised is ridiculous. You've totally derailed Zyne's thread, by turning it into a partisan attack on democrats. Hell, using your logic you could turn every thread on the board into an attack on democrats.

Too bad to, we might have had an interesting discussion on why the kids did what they did. I suggest next time you start your own thread instead of ruining somebody elses with obvious biased partisan bull****.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since nobody else stepped up and said this, I will.

It's okay, or at least more ok, for people to make intraracial attacks than cross-racial ones. Chris Rock can say the N word. I cannot. I don't what color Gary is, so it's undetermined whether he can or not.

Is this stupid? Maybe, but the system works. In the review I read of "N*gger: History of a Troublesome Word," in Salon Randall Kennedy was quoted as using an analogy, something along the lines of, I can speak to my mother in ways you cannot.

To claim it's racist in the same way for one black man to call another an oreo, as it is for a white man to use a racial epithet against a black man just isn't the truth. Context and history, I suppose, and it would be nice if it was just the same.

I think the Oreo Cookie, however, should be banned from all political debate, because it tastes terrible.

Dan

Edited for clarity in first sentence

[ November 08, 2005, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: witless chum ]

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Gary,

The point you raised is ridiculous. You've totally derailed Zyne's thread, by turning it into a partisan attack on democrats. Hell, using your logic you could turn every thread on the board into an attack on democrats.

Too bad to, we might have had an interesting discussion on why the kids did what they did. I suggest next time you start your own thread instead of ruining somebody elses with obvious biased partisan bull****.

KE

Yeah, Gary. This thread is supposed to be reasons to hate Dallas. Not reasons to hate Democrats. Can't you let us feel smug and superior in peace? [Razz]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More:

Source

quote:
The chairman of the Republican Party yesterday challenged his Democratic counterpart to condemn racist statements against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, but Howard Dean demanded his own apology and ignored the question.
The former Vermont governor was asked by host Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" to respond to the statements, in an appearance that Mr. Dean insisted be separate from an interview with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
Mr. Dean gave no response, aside from saying he didn't receive an apology for being called an anti-Semite by a member of the Republican Party.
Mr. Steele, a Republican candidate for the Senate, is the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland, where Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller Jr. labeled him an "Uncle Tom" in 2001. Some black political leaders maintain that Mr. Steele is not exempt from racial comments because of his political views.
"There's been an utter silence in response to what have been vicious and racist attacks on Michael Steele in Maryland," Mr. Mehlman said.
Mr. Mehlman on "Meet the Press" called on Mr. Dean to "condemn this kind of racist and bigoted activity. It's wrong."
"He's had racial epithets thrown at him. He's been derided on a Web site that the Democrats have. And while some Democrats in Maryland have criticized it, there's been utter silence from national Democrats on this important issue," Mr. Mehlman said.
"I would also hope he'd condemn the following: There are a whole bunch of Democratic candidates and Republican candidates around the country. But Charles Schumer and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] chose one candidate [Mr. Steele] to go after his credit report and engage in identity theft against him," Mr. Mehlman said.
Mr. Russert put forth both questions to Mr. Dean, who said "moral values" should bring a "better tone in our political campaigns."
"I don't like that stuff," Mr. Dean said of the credit-report incident.
Mr. Dean declined to address the statements against Mr. Steele, but said, "I didn't hear Ken condemning the chairman of the Maryland party when he called me an anti-Semite."


Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1