Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

"Might" is the optimum word on all things relating to a new rail system. With how bad fuel prices are getting, American's might have been ready to really change our habits. But again, he put the cart before the horse. He needed to say/do something in the face of the economy turning severely....and I feel like the rail idea was premature and got shoved out the door before anyone even had a chance to talk about it

[RedKing]

And yeah, you better believe a huge amount of hostility against Obama is due to his skin color. Nobody will admit it, but come on. The generation that harrassed little black girls for daring to go to a white school is still alive. You think there's no hardcore racists left?

Ahh, you mean the Democratic Establishent?  Those guys are who are in charge now.

That is ridiculous. You know damn well that most of the racists left the Democratic party to form the American Independent party with George Wallace and were then more or less reabsorbed into the Republican base over the next few decades.

Cue mention of Robert Byrd in 3....2....1....

[Nikov]

And yeah, you better believe a huge amount of hostility against Obama is due to his skin color. Nobody will admit it, but come on. The generation that harrassed little black girls for daring to go to a white school is still alive. You think there's no hardcore racists left?

Ahh, you mean the Democratic Establishent?  Those guys are who are in charge now.

That is ridiculous. You know damn well that most of the racists left the Democratic party to form the American Independent party with George Wallace and were then more or less reabsorbed into the Republican base over the next few decades.

Cue mention of Robert Byrd in 3....2....1....

Matthew Gains (Aug 4, 1840- Jun 11, 1900) was a Republican elected into Texas' 16th district in the Twelfth Texas Legislature House of Representatives. He was elected to serve six years, but only served four, due to being charged by a Democratic colleague as a "flat-footer [sic] (N word)" and was charged with Bigamy. He was removed from office, despite the charge being overturned.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_African_American_Congressman#ixzz1NChcCXRR

[RedKing]

Yes. Your 140-year old example is crushing proof that Nancy Pelosi is secretly a Grand Wizard. 

[PTTG??]

Yes. Your 140-year old example is crushing proof that Nancy Pelosi is secretly a Grand Wizard. 

I KNEW IT!

[Nikov]

I'm just really sick of the "all the racists left the party of Davis to join the party of Lincoln" nonsense, particularly since the party of Davis was the one still trying to bar blacks from schools until the party of Lincoln sent troops. Yes, the people who tried to keep little black girls from going to a white school were Democrats. I don't care if Democrats never own up to it, but they need to stop pretending it was a bunch of crypto-Republicans. Its the strangest premutation of "no true Scotsman" ever visted on the American political mind.

[Bauglir]

It's about as strange as "Democrats are wimps who are too weak to be willing to enter a conflict", if we're talking about party stereotypes that are handily proven wrong by the actions of politicians several decades or more in the past. That said, I'm not so much defending the Democrats as a party, so much as just trying to bring up an example of similar claims. I can't seriously deny that, for much of their history, the Democrats were the Obnoxiously Conservative Party of Old Rich White Dudes. It just doesn't bother me so much, given that I don't much care about which actual party I vote for, and try to vote on the merits of the candidate (or, and I will be honest, the merits of the party, if I haven't been able to do proper research, but it's because of the positions it takes, not just holding the party line).

[sluissa]

I think we're getting off track here again and it's turning into nothing but party bashing. I'd personally like to hear more about Israel rather than have the thread locked.

[Aqizzar]

I think we're getting off track here again and it's turning into nothing but party bashing. I'd personally like to hear more about Israel rather than have the thread locked.

I apologize in advance, but since I actually have a degree in this shit, I feel it's my place to try to untangle this argument.  I'll put it in a spoiler.

Spoiler: The Democratic South (click to show/hide)

The most important book you can read about the history of the Democratic South was "Southern Politics in State and Nation" or anything else by V.O. Key.  His work predates the shift, but it explains the history.  What happened was, after the Civil War, the Republican Party was the part of Reconstruction, and the Democratic Party was not.  Being that this was 140 years ago, it has jack shit to do with modern politics.  After Reconstruction was stopped in its tracks, the political elite of the south used their opportunity to hijack the emergency powers of the era to rewrite their constitutions and laws, enshrining a one-party system that only Whites would have access to.

By the beginning of the century, the Democratic Party of the South was a wildly different party from the Democrats of the North and Midwest.  But because southern voters would almost automatically vote for any President with a Democratic label, national politics was largely a battle between the almost diametrically opposed factions of the Democratic Party.  Sure, you didn't see a lot of racial equality in the Northern and Midwestern groups either, but it was the fucking 1920s.  Let's have a little history - Harry Truman integrated the military, probably the biggest and most important edifice of equality until the Voting Rights Act itself.

Where it all started to fall apart was Kennedy.  Until then, no Democratic presidential candidate could be too far away from the politics of the South, because they consituted such a large and solid voting block that a Democrat who pissed them off probably couldn't win.  That changed in 1960, when Kennedy won the nation despite big chunks of the South going Republican, partly as an anti-Kennedy vote, and party just from incredibly low Democratic turnout that let the normally small Republican vote finally win for once.  Nixon wasn't a much better looking candidate the most of the South, but he wasn't Kennedy, who they were afraid would finally overturn their cozy little Apartheid.  They were wrong, because Kennedy didn't want to lose his reelection, but then history happened.

Of all people, it was Texan Democrat Johnson who captained the ship of integration; even if he wasn't that enthusiastic about it, he was a very sober politician who knew segregation was coming to a head, and would tear the country in half if not resolved.  Southern Politics floundered for about one election cycle as Johnson declined to run again after 1965, and Humphrey lost to Nixon as most of the old hardcore Democratic South went to George Wallace.  By 1972, the White elites of Southern politics basically repeated 1880 - if the Blacks were going to be allowed into the process again, they could keep the Democratic Party to themselves, and the Whites would take the Republicans and not let anyone into their club.  The Democrats didn't recover from their post-Humphrey blowup until Nixon blew up.  Carter won the leftovers next time around, then Reagan made the deal of the century by crafting the Republican alliance of big business and social conservatives, and the rest is history.

For every Robert Byrd who survived the 1960s basically on name recognition (and a lack of Black constituents), there were a dozen George Wallace's and Strom Thurmond's who took their ball and went to another party.  Actually know the history involved, I don't put any more weight to the idea that the modern Democratic party is responsible for the sins of Boss Crump, than the entire modern Republican party is absolved any one candidate's race-baiting because once upon time Lincoln was also called a Republican.

[Nadaka]

I said most, not all.

Yep, the segregationists WERE democrats. And they did leave the party when the majority of the party abandoned their agenda. And now most of them vote Republican. You can not like people mentioning this particular truth all you want, but that does not stop it from being true. George H. W. Bush himself once mentioned how utterly disgusted he was with having to pander to those people. It really isn't a "no true Scotsman" issue, the issue is that parties change over time. The republican party is no more the party of Lincoln today than the Democratic party is the party of George Wallace today. And neither of them is the party of Jefferson or Madison for that matter. Both parties are full of shills and lackeys with the odd man out that is moderately respectable, and a generation from now we will have a whole new set of shills and lackeys setting the party agenda to who knows what on both sides.

Edit: work got in the way of me posting. So I am pretty late to the party and not nearly as specific/well spoke as Aqizzar.

So... how bout that Israel?

[Africa]

I'm just really sick of the "all the racists left the party of Davis to join the party of Lincoln" nonsense, particularly since the party of Davis was the one still trying to bar blacks from schools until the party of Lincoln sent troops. Yes, the people who tried to keep little black girls from going to a white school were Democrats. I don't care if Democrats never own up to it, but they need to stop pretending it was a bunch of crypto-Republicans. Its the strangest premutation of "no true Scotsman" ever visted on the American political mind.

Durrrr the fact that they were (hell, maybe still are) Democrats has no bearing on the Democratic establishment of today.

And if you'd like to look up any poll numbers on who is more likely to be racist according to party affiliation, then be my guest. And if you can't act like a reasonable adult, then why post?

So, how that Israel? Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak are talking in the words of people who have some damn sense, but no substance. No suggestions that Israel should declare its own borders before declaring its borders are indefensible. No suggestions that maybe freezing settlements is in fact a reasonable precondition and not a Palestinian attempt to initiate a second Holocaust. Is this the best Israeli politics can offer? And Danny Ayalon (of the openly racist Yisrael Beitenu party) is warning that Israel will have to convince 60-70 countries to vote against Palestinian statehood in September - instead of looking at possibly effectual ways Israel could deal with that "threat," rightist politicians just have to keep their base angry and scared by portraying it as a threat, and not an incredibly ironic parallel to Israel's own fight for independence.

[Nikov]

And if you can't act like a reasonable adult, then why post?

And: For all the anti-Obama shrieking coming out of Israel, he sure hopped onto AIPAC's circumcised junk in a big way.

Why post indeed.

Bauglir, I appreciate your honesty. Let it be known I fully understand Democratic presidents engaged the United States in all large-scale land wars of the 20th century, rightly so, and share your view that facts and merits have relevance and stereotypes do not. That is why I am particularly annoyed when Democrats, or anyone really, engage in race baiting by insisting, somehow, Republicans were historically responsible for the current state of racial affairs. Equally fallicious is the George Wallace line of reasoning, which suggests that if a racist joins a party, then the entire party is racist and responsible for everything done by the racists previously in the other party, even things done before switching parties. I took issue with this because it needed to be smashed, and I'm surprised who rose to the occasion. After settling the historical record, we arrive at the fact of the matter.

"I don't put any more weight to the idea that the modern Democratic party is responsible for the sins of Boss Crump, than the entire modern Republican party is absolved any one candidate's race-baiting because once upon time Lincoln was also called a Republican." - Aqizzar

Agreed.

[Bouchart]

Curious.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas/palestinian-pm-stricken-in-austin

[sluissa]

Curious.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas/palestinian-pm-stricken-in-austin

Clever. Nobody would ever suspect assassination by cholesterol. Especially if it happened in the US.

[Africa]

That is why I am particularly annoyed when Democrats, or anyone really, engage in race baiting by insisting, somehow, Republicans were historically responsible for the current state of racial affairs.

Nobody suggested that. You were just looking for something to bitch about.

I hope Salam Fayyad doesn't become yet another casual of Arab cigarette-love, jeez. One thing Americans can brag about, for all our Velveeta and TV dinners, is we don't freaking smoke. Not the way Europeans and Middle Easterners do. Anyway, he's one of the best leaders involved in this conflict and the last thing anybody needs is for him to be put out of commission or dead.

I'm also facebook friends with his son that was graduating, oddly enough.