Why does Republican=White=Racist in so many people's minds?
While I am not a republic nor completly white, I am so tired of the constant assumption that Republicans are just white racist. Why do people assume this? It would be like saying Democrats are just poor black and hispanic people. See how ignorant that sounds! Why?
My personal belief is that people project their own view of the world...
People that 'see' color, and are concerned with it, or are racist themselves, will turn to 'RACIST!'.
Where people who truly aren't racist, the thought will almost never cross their mind.Jaxson nailed it. While there are cases of racism from all sectors and cultures, Republicans didn't like Bill Clinton any more than they don't like Obama.
Partisanship - yes.
Racism - no.True, the republican's were trying just as hard to get rid of Clinton, as they are doing with Obama. And, my main worry is, that if Obama gets a second term the republican stonewalling will just continue. And, they are complete morons for doing so. Don't these idiots know that the whole world is watching their pig headed stubborn BS. Are these people we really want running the country. If America was a corporation, they would all be fired. Work together or get out!
What makes you think that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is not a corporation? Act of 1871 incorporated this entity!
Gee, I thought the Democrats were running the Senate these days... guess it's only the House that holds things up. I must need a refresher on how our government works!
As much as Clinton was a dirty pig and pervert, at least he was willing to work with the other party and get some things done. Obama has no clue how governing works, which is no surprise since he had no work experience coming into office. It's called reaching out and letting the other side win once in a while so that you can win the next time. He refuses to do that and so he is obstructed, at least from the House side. Maybe he should have a sit-down with Harry Reid if he wants to look like he's doing something productive.Obama bent over backwards to work with the opposition in his first couple of years, now he has to deal with an obstructionist Congress.
What fantasy world do you live in? He had a majority in BOTH Houses his first 2 years. And how did he "work with the opposition"? By shoving through a Health Care Law without one single GOP vote that the majority of the people did NOT want and still don't. He has not made one move at all to "work with the opposition".
More deluded liberal nonsense I would say. They love to believe that he worked so hard and the Republicans were the bad guys, but you're so right. He cared only about his own legacy and getting that stupid health care law passed that he just pushed everything to the side, pissing off everyone he needed to be working with for future legislation.
Plus he didn't have a clue what to do about the economy so he let his buddies dictate that policy, which has completely failed. It's exactly what the voters deserve though, you get what you vote for.I actually have a memory of what happened in 2009 that is not dependent on what has been rewritten in the minds of others. He could have rammed through a lot more but he wanted to be seen as working with the opposition.
I don't rely on US media to get my news...President Obama faced opposition among Democrats for his Health Care Bill. Why? Because the PEOPLE did NOT want it. He promised them "we will take care of you at election time". The only concession he made was to remove the government run option. The majority of those Congressmen lost their jobs at mid-term elections. Why do you think the Democrats lost control? The people did not want this Law and do not want this Law. 60% want it repealed. Those are facts. You can look them up anywhere.
People don't want it under the name "Obamacare" but actually want most of what's in it, which was originally espoused by the Republicans. But now it's bad because it's OBAMA'S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … t-it-does/"Obamacare" is arguably narcissistic enough to make anyone's skin crawl.
How so?
I happen to think a law that was tested in Massachusetts that provides coverage for everyone at a reasonable cost is a good thing. The insurance companies can't spend money on ads and executive bonuses.
Gee....I wonder why insurance companies are working so hard to make sure the law doesn't pass..."Obamacare" "Obama" ..."care"
Codycare.
Kathleencare.
See what I mean? That's rather narcissistic, don't you think?You're unaware of the fact that the GOP coined the phrase "Obamacare?"
Irrelevant.
When I adopted my cat (see picture), she came with a name that the Humane Society "coined" for her.
I went along with it on the adoption papers.
Therefore, I own the responsibility of giving the cat her name. Obama owns the responsibility of going along with "Obamacare" much in the same way I went along with my cat's name.Fine, you can call your cat whatever you want.
It doesn't mean you control what I call your cat.She's probably just made cuz the Humane Society named the cat Obamacare and now she can't change it cuz she went along with it on the adoption papers.
I adopted a cat named Repo....
I assure you it did not stay Repo lol
Naming a cat you adopted is a very inapt analogy.
Obamacare is a derogatory term coined by people who hate Obama and want others to hate the ACA. People who refer to the president as Barry or Barack Hussein Obama or other terms of derision and disrespect. It is intended as an epithet and a rallying cry for people who don't even know what the health care law is or does, have not and will not be personally affected by it, but are sure they hate it. Why? Because it's OBAMAcare.
Note that the health care centers, hospitals, hospital systems and physicians who are on the frontlines of implementing it do NOT refer to it as Obamacare.
They call it ACA or the ACA.
Or health reform.
More formally they refer to it this way:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), as amended by the Reconciliation Act of 2012 (P.L. 111-152), (collectively referred to as the health reform law).
They welcome it and take it very seriously.CNN calls it "Obamacare." Hospitals, nurses, and doctors around here call it "Obamacare." I don't think it's always a negative term. I support much of the ACA, but I often refer to it as "Obamacare," and I refer to the Mass. version as "Romneycare."
No doubt, the name has "legs" but President Obama did not named it after himself in some egotistical "it's MY plan" move.
I checked to make sure and found numerous quite recent (2012) articles pointing to an "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality on Obama's party.
Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza believes that Obama had no choice but to embrace the term because it has become so commonly used. The Google politics blog noted that "Obamacare" has become, in 2012, more common in internet searches than "Affordable Care Act" or "Health Care Reform." Also, the top rising searches related to "Obamacare" are "Catholic Obamacare," "Romney Obamacare," "Supreme Court Obamacare" and "Romneycare."
"Given that reality, the White House – and President Obama's 2012 reelection team – had little choice but to try to throw their arms around the term, which has long been pushed as a pejorative by Republicans."Yes, it was during a press conference that he finally said something like 'if they want to call it Obamacare, that's fine, because I do care..." something to that effect, owning the term.
Yea....but how would a Republican keep power without bullying and scare tactics? I'd hate to see what would happen if they actually had to come up with an agenda or an idea or something like that.
It's not even about partisan crap. It's about actually being a leader of a nation and not a divider. Both Clinton and Reagan were leaders. Obama is not.
It's hard to lead when the opposition believes that they can disprove evolution by citing the Loch Ness Monster...
It's hard to lead when Sarah Palin says "death panels" and the entire GOP rallies around it....
It's hard to lead when the opposition is willing to throw America off a cliff to get what they want.
Obama should tell the Tea Party to act like grown men and women and work to lead the country instead of holding everything hostage just for political shows.
Maybe if the GOP would look out for the nation instead of playing partisan games they could become a respectable party again.Why would other people's opinions make it hard to lead? A leader's success is measured in his/her ability to lead a group, regardless of whatever the opposition might do or say. Sounds like an cop-out, to me. Quit making excuses. Obama has done very little of what he said he would do during his 2008 election campaign, and by 'done very little,' I also mean 'attempted very little.' Last I heard, he is trying to pass a law to protect African American children from being unfairly disciplined. Childhood bullies... Like we don't have bigger fish to fry, like, say unemployment not budging at all since he came into office?
Obama has done very little of what he said he would do during his 2008 election campaign, and by 'done very little,' I also mean 'attempted very little.'
I'm sure there are also some things he said he would do that he hasn't, some of which he never will, but hey, he still has four more years. The following list is a copy and paste from just the first page; there are nine more pages worth if you're interested.
Obama Campaign Promises that are Promises Kept
Extend child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
Create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
Create an international tax haven watch list
Increase minority access to capital
Require economic justification for tax changes
Implement "Women Owned Business" contracting program
Change standards for determining broadband access
Create a consumer-friendly credit card rating system
Establish a credit card bill of rights
Expand loan programs for small businesses
Extend the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes
Extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)
Extend and index the 2007 Alternative Minimum Tax patch
Close the "doughnut hole" in Medicare prescription drug plan
Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program
Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
Give tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
Require large employers to contribute to a national health plan
Require children to have health insurance coverage
Expand eligibility for Medicaid
Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
lol@Loch Ness Monster. That's just BS posturing from you and you know it.
Palin's comments have nothing to do with anything. He got his Health Care Law through that the people did not want. It is about everything that comes after.
You say the GOP should cave, why not the Dems? What are the Dems offering to the GOP? What is the President offering? Nothing. But that is how the left works these days. We're not going to compromise but shame on your for not kowtowing to what we want! Funny your comment about the cliff when it was the Democrats who said they were willing to send America over the cliff rather than compromise with the GOP.
They don't want "most" of what's in it. They like the preexisting condition changes and keeping the kids on their parent's insurance until aged 26. That does not equate to "most".
Exactly; that's the argument we keep hearing but the fact is that Republicans agreed to the few provisions that people actually like. Those are the only ones the majority of people want to keep. The rest is just junk and will only raise everyone's costs, no matter what the Democrats try to tell us.
It's just common sense that paying for 'free' services and adding millions of people to Medicaid will take money. Where do they think that money is coming from?Anyone making over $250,000 per year will have to pay for it with increased taxes.
Uh......those who don't buy insurance? Are you guys paying attention or is it just easier to make things up that fit your narrative?
So you think that the fines they assess on people who don't buy insurance will be enough money to pay for all of the people who are getting it for free? There isn't even a mechanism to collect those fines in place and it's not criminal not to pay the fine. So again, where is the money coming from?
If you get a refund the IRS will take the fine from there..........
So yea, you will get the fine collected from you in most cases.
Are you admitting that this "The money comes from people making over $250,000" is a worn out talking point?No, I'm saying that there will not be enough money to pay for all the freeloaders, no matter how high they raise taxes on the "rich". Services will suck and doctors have already stopped taking new Medicaid patients, so where are these people going to go? Emergency rooms, like they do now. Great solution.
And by the way, people with higher incomes never really get refunds, those are mostly the lower income folks. So who is it really hurting?
Sure, but the rich usually get tax breaks in other areas, so its really a wash.
You can keep up with the talking points all day, it doesn't mean your opinion meshes with the facts.It's not a talking point. What is your point exactly? I don't understand what you're saying I'm wrong about.
Deleted
You are making no sense and saying nothing. But I will respond to the point that it's not a free service. You must think that people pay for Medicaid. They don't and they still won't now. It's for the poor. Obamacare expands it by millions of people but cuts the payments made to doctors who provide services, which is why they are not taking new patients who are on Medicaid. So again, who pays for all of those people getting FREE medicaid?
You keep saying that taxes are going to go up for the rich if the Affordable Healthcare Act passes.
Sounds like a talking point to me....First of all, I didn't say anything about taxes going up, others have said it though. But obviously they will have to because someone has to pay for the program. If you don't think that's true, then you just keep living in dreamland and the rest of us will pay the bills.
You're right, it was Kat who said the taxes will go up. Still, you did reply when I mentioned that it wasn't true.
Either way, its simply not true. Each American will have to buy insurance or pay a fine. I don't see how that equates to higher taxes on the rich or making the system free.
Its frustrating to watch people use GOP talking points to try to argue that this isn't a good law instead of actually looking at what is in the law to form their argument.Now I'll say it; taxes will have to go up on the rich to pay for the law because the fines will simply not be enough to cover all of those added to Medicaid. It's just not possible, the math does not add up. Those on Medicaid don't pay premiums, thus it is 'free' to them. It is paid for with tax dollars. So unless doctors have decided to work for free from now on, someone has to pay for those added millions. How will that be? With no enforcement of the fines by the IRS, there just won't be enough money coming into the government to pay for the added Medicaid patients. I don't know how that doesn't make sense to you. It's just common sense.
The expansion of medicaid is only a small part of the bill though. The majority of Americans will be purchasing private plans.
"About 22m people without insurance—nearly half of America's uninsured—could qualify for Medicaid if states agree to the expansion. But many will not. Texas and Florida, which challenged the law, have 2.5m and 1.8m uninsured with incomes less than 138% of the federal poverty level. Some of these are eligible for insurance subsidies on new health exchanges—the law provides subsidies, on a sliding scale, to those with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. But those with incomes below 100% who do not qualify for a state's existing Medicaid programme will have to fend for themselves. More likely, they will end up in emergency rooms, passing costs to everyone else."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac … d-medicaidObama is the leader of this country. The states are part of this country. Obama is allowing this to happen.
The states can opt out because of a ruling of the Supreme Court. What do you want Obama to do, send in the storm troopers?
That would be pretty cool!
But the president and US government can actually stop things. If a state ruled that rape was legal, they'd probably put in a block to that.
Greetings to both of you. I hope you are both doing well this evening.
If you don’t mind, I would just like to toss a few words into your discussion. Actually, KK and Cody, someone has already done the math and the consensus reached about a year ago is that additional taxes will not be needed to pay for the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). At that time the CBO reported the cost and revenue projections to Congress. When, and if, all savings, spending, revenue, subsidies, and tax credits provided in the PPACA play out, the CBO projected a $210B net reduction in the deficit over the ten years ending 2021. If Congress repeals the PPACA and the provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 as threatened by Congressional Republicans, the CBO projects the estimated deficit will increase by $210B. {1} So far, at least, the PPACA is expected to be a winner. Hey, please do not take my word. Be sure to check the report for yourself.
Thanks for letting me interrupt.
{1} http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … lation.pdf Page 2 Table 1.
If every soul over the age of 18 in this country buys insurance, like Obama wants, then there will be no fees. None, whatsoever.
Then, the money will be drawn from taxes. If the government is going to provide a massive amount of services, for free, then they need to have a backup plan and a backup to the backup plan as to determine from where they draw these resources.Free birth control, free medical exams...may I go on?
@Quill
Actually, the CBO has revised that report as of March 2012. Here is a link to the breakdown of the quote regarding the revision, the link and a link to the revised report.
"Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 … y-thought/
revised report:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … imates.pdf
Sadly, the new report is not as concise and clear as the initial one. However, in a nutshell, less people on the exchanges, less newly insured, Medicaid rolls grow but due to lowered income not expansion, initial costs more, higher taxes to employers than believed. That sort of stuff.
Happy Reading.
Oh and I apologize that this post is not in the correct place as a response. For some reason, I am having issues getting reply buttons. Ugh.Thank you so much, SassySue. Your links led me to the latest July 24, 2012, CBO estimate of the budgetary impact of the PPACA.
The CBO reported to Congress that the law is expected to result in a $109B net reduction in the deficit and the national debt between 2013 and 2022. A smaller wedge of pie than before but still a net positive affect on the budget and the national debt. {1}
Thank you very much for sharing this with us.
{1} http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
I thought there had been another report in July but honestly it was late so I did not look that hard for it once I found the one in March. The CBO reports are great. They have great things to say about Ryan's plan too. Everyone likes to tout them as this great objective source, and I guess they are that. They do not have a lot of basis in reality though and that is the problem. Which is why they are always being revised. They rely on fantasy scenarios and come up with fantasy numbers.
How are you today SassySue?
“Fantasy” strikes me as harsh and seems to imply the CBO makes up scenarios and numbers. Actually, that is not the case. The CBO has to deal with transient variables and time sensitive assumptions that can change from month to month. The only thing “fantastic” about the CBO is the level analytical playing field and the lack of political bias that does not exist anywhere else. The accuracy of CBO estimates are tested and tracked and the results indicate they are no better and no worse then the average results found in business forecasts coming out of blue chip corporations.
Thank you again for your help!
@Quill
Agreed. Fantasy was not the right word and I even knew that but I was already running late for work and did not have time to change it. The point wasn't that they were making stuff up, only that the numbers are based on so many multiple variables and scenarios that do not necessarily come to pass. Therefore the numbers they come up with are not real numbers. They may well be as accurate as any business forecasts, which are usually off as well. The projected savings, even in their own report, are not expected to be maintained due to the nature of the Independent Council and the cost cutting that they will recommend and how that will affect Medicare.I go along with the phrase 'junk science' of which there is an abundance of examples. By the way; did they include murdered folks in their count of the uninsured dead?
Any mentally or age capable person who can't afford insurance but has not taken the time to register for medicaid then dies of an illness while hospitalized presents a situation which is his her/his own fault. Medicaid ends up paying for the dead persons hospitalization in most cases anyway.
Unless Obama Care has included in the costs of going from door- to- door with registration forms (they probably won't be allowed entrance) the count of deaths of the uninsured will not be affected. I was once involved with a group that did go from door-to-door in a well-meaning attempt to make sure that school aged children received vaccinations before school start. You probably wouldn't believe how unsuccessful that idealistic action was.
Mitch McConnell called the shot not long after Obama was elected here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJcYes, everyone knows what Mitch McConnell said. But he isn't in charge in the Senate. He doesn't decide what gets voted on or what gets passed. The Democrats do. How much has gotten done lately on the Senate floor?
Yah, the first response here is the most apt, for sure. People project their views.
Does perception drive or follow reality?
I was shocked just yesterday to see these numbers:
Romney/Ryan, the Republican ticket, is pulling ZERO percent of the African American vote. Are there blacks in the Republican party? Of course. Michael Steele, Alan West, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain.
But apparently not in statistically significant numbers.
Also, given the high percentage of Hispanic Americans who are Catholic, you might expect a higher number of H-A Republicans voting on social conservative platform. But by a margin of 2:1 (according to current polls) they vote Democrat.
But truthfully, perception IS a big part of it. This election year, in particular, the "face" of the Republican party is white and male. Have you noticed that?
We know logically there are Republican women and Republican minorities. But it's the white guys getting the airtime.
That's what people see, so that's what people believe.
I'm not shocked. Years from now, this era of progressive politics will be known as one of the most divisive in our history. Thus far it has pitted race against race, gender against gender, and religion against religion.
Thank God for the Internet, as there will be a permanent record of idiocy that has been spewed.
Go to any republican rally or say...a Romney/Ryan rally and you tell me what you see. Nothing but white folks; and the occasional delusional black. Go to a Democratic rally or say Obama/Biden rally and you will see a broad cross section of America.
So, if a black person is seen at a Republican rally, they are delusional?
Saying that is almost as ignorant as racism! I have known many black republicans. They were all good working middle class people. Far from delusional. 2besure, you failed to address why it is assumed that just because you are white and vote republican you must be racist.
Quite a few white GOPers at Herman Cain's appearances, before the man dropped out.
Sadly it is unseen because herman cain must not be a real black person, he's just a "delusional" black person! It's stupidity. That's all it comes down to. People not being able to see past what their tv or radio tell them!
Yes and no.
Herman Cain is not delusion because he is a black Republican.
He is delusional, tho!
Cain had some great fiscal ideas, but he didn't have his house in order and he wasn't ready to run. I think we'll see him again, when he figures out that this is a dog-eat-dog race.
So only the black person in the crowd is delusional. What does that make the white people there?
Fig Newtons of the black guy's imagination?
"White folks" and delusional blacks.
Yep.. any black would have to be delusional to be hanging with "white folks"
Do I really need to parse this comment further?The sad part of this whole conversation is someone would vote because of race. I'm sorry, but please look at the facts Mr. Obama is taking our nation down right before your eyes. He had a job to do and he failed, and please don't say he had a mess to clean up when he was elected. The man knew exactly what he was getting into ( or maybe not ). The numbers don't lie, look at our national debt. The fact that anyone would vote do to race, well that's just complete ignorance.
There bussed in from the local unemployment office.
And the GOPers drive in in their Bentleys and Cadillacs.
LOL and haha . . . like there aren't plenty, if not more , Dems with Bentleys, not to mention Cadillacs for darn sure, talk about profiling......... laughable, truly.....if you were in political office and under scrutiny . . . nuff said.
Mr. Deeds is not profiling. He is just stating facts. Gov. Romney, as quoted by the Washington Post, “I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck. Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs.” He also admitted owning a Dodge truck bring the count to five vehicles at one time. I own a second hand 9-year old Merc. How many cars do you own?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele … _blog.htmlDang, five vehicles at one time, what excess.............and who benefited from his buying those vehicles, maintaining those vehicles, driving those vehicles, garaging those vehicles......absurd, the idea that his vehicle count is a defense. I own two vehicles, both are over ten years old, and one is a Ford farm truck that works its tailgate off, and has done so for over ten years. With the direction this country is going, replacing that work truck is scary to contemplate in the future - God forbid, it runs on gas, shame on me. You keep driving your 9 year old Merc, and be glad you have it. And you think about America with everyone poor to middling and driving 10 year old vehicles like me and refusing to pay the outrageous prices of today for new vehicles -- and just where do you think our economy will be two decades down the road? Thinking about it . . . ?
I own four vehicles plus some toys. I don't see your point.
This is an excellent point. Last night while watching First Lady Obama speak and the DNC I noted that the camera kept cutting away to people in traditional ethnic clothes: A woman from Africa, two men from the Middle East, I even saw a sombrero. Dems just appeal to a wider variety of groups than Repubs. Call it policy, track record, whatever, the separation still has its roots in old (and, sadly, in many cases still true) notions about what Republicans stand for. Not usually the same agenda as voters with a permanent tan.
I'm a leftist and a liberal, but most of all, I'm a political junkie, and being that most left talk shows are boring to tears I listen to a lot of right wing talk, and the reason why the republican party as a whole is seen today as equivalent to racist,white is because the party has been taken hostage by the right wing extremist wing of the party, the moderates ,the liberals, the inclusive forces within the republican party have been expelled or condemned to ostracism ,what used to be the big tent party is no longer, and the elements that are the voice of the party today are seen by minorities as hostile towards them and justifiably so, because the rhetoric being heard coming out of the republicans who are in the limelight defines blacks as not wanting to work and wanting to live off the welfare state, and hispanics as being responsible through illegality for the deficits the government finds itself due to educating them and keeping them healthy, and also of lowering everybody's wages.
The liberals are the ones, who are spreading that message of hate, to create division and hate among people, because they harbor hate.
I am a 50 year old white male. I know about discrimination and racism too well, because I'm a Jew who grew up in the Soviet Union. In this country, I have experienced more racism and discrimination from the Latinos and blacks than you can ever imagine! Most of them just don't like white people, and don't trust them, despite the fact that they get cheated and abused mostly by their own.
I hope that intelligent people don't fall for the liberal propaganda machine. Unfortunately my experiences in life shows that this world is full of stupid people.Don't you have liberals and conservatives bassackards? Sure sounds like it to me. I've visited your former country (Soviet Union, not just Russia) and all I saw were white people and people of Mongolian descent. I don't remember seeing a black person in Moscow or Leningrad.
I know quite a few Republicans, and I can think of only two whom I would consider "white racists." African-Americans overwhelmingly for Democrats, not because they believe Republicans are racists, but because Democrats support policies that they believe address their interests better than the policies supported by Republicans.
How do you know that about African-American's Ralph?
Here on this thread an in others, the inference is that white people are racist solely because they are Republican.
Heck.. why don't we just flip that bizarre script and simply state that blacks and latinos are racist because they won't support a white candidate?
Seriously, could you imagine the conclusions that would be reached if 94 percent of whites supported Romney?With the implication that there are not racists in the democrat party, which is ridiculous. The rah rah for our team mentality creates a situation that policy does not matter, uneducated voters. Why become educated if all that matters is for your side to win. This happens with both parties.
In reality, we have much more in common than not. If everyone could just step back from the tactics of division, the people would be able to have more of an impact on the future of our nation!
Just roll with it and stand firmly on the truth as you understand it.
While I think many people accept that individual republicans are not necessarily white and racist, I do think that the platform that is put forth by the Republican party does more to benefit the upper classes than the lower classes. Since class is still seen as a proxy for race (which is shouldn't be!), those policies can be seen as racist. I also think "racism" is interpreted differently by people. For some, it's being openly racist, saying or doing harmful things to people of other races. For others, it can be much more subtle (e.g., voter ID laws that grossly disproportionately affect minorities; or proposing to cut taxes for the very wealthy while increasing them for the poor). The fact that the vast majority of black voters (I believe it's upwards of 90% and probably more in the upcoming election) vote democratic in presidential elections should be a good sign that black voters understand that the democratic platform is more aligned with their interests.
Historically the Democratic party enjoyed strong support from the southern states, while the Republican party was formed by anti slavery activists. But many southern supporters were alienated from the Democrats when Truman ran on a platform of social justice and civil rights in the late forties. This continued in the sixties with Kennedy.
To take advantage, in the late sixties (at the height of civil unrest and calls for desegregation in the south), the Republicans ran on a platform of law and order, states rights etc. Nixon called it the 'Southern Strategy'. It involved using coded language to convey messages that appealed to the far right, but without being overtly racist (this has since become known as 'dog-whistle' politics). It worked. In 1972 Richard Nixon won all the States in the Union except Massachusetts. However at the same time the Republicans lost around 90% of the black vote.
So in answer to your question, the south is historically associated with racism and the far right. The Republican party has increasingly been associated with the south. Therefore the Republican party has been associated with racism and the far right.Because it has worked psychologically for many years, and because no one has made that understanding of party differences change via educated enlightenment amongst the Democratically influenced/controlled voting Americans.........the indoctrination is much more important than any facts......
I do not want to assume that GOP adherents are racists. If I am against them it is for their policies, just like the whites say that Obama's race is not an issue but the policies he advocates are.
Is that OK, when there are so many stupid people that say Blacks vote for Obama merely because he is black?Hold on, not to get personal, but are you Brown? Do you talk about the vote with any brown skinned people? Being able to answer yes to both, it is in no way stupid to say that brown people vote for President Obama merely because he is of like hue, it is the complete truth. It may be a not so smart reason to cast your vote, but it is most definitely the only motivating factor for many. I'm not saying I'm one of those people, but I'm just saying . . .
Oh Lord, you aren't supposed to speak the truth here! Now you're gonna get it....
Only because people in every race are so ignorant. They are so rapped up in material things it's pitiful! I only hope that everyones vote is sincere and not because of race!
This may be a little long for the forums, and if it is, I apologize.
To answer your question, it's because the overwhelming majority of Republicans (myself included) have sat back and let the extreme right hijack our party. For years we laughed at them, marginalized them, and even ridiculed them as the "lunatic fringe", all the while not noticing that they were slowly taking over.
As a Republican, I am a conservative- yes, that much is true. However, being a conservative doesn't mean that I hate: gays, minorities, immigrants, the poor, or non-Christians. It doesn't mean that I want God involved in Government either, or that I'm somehow against women's rights. It doesn't mean that I think everyone has the right to carry an M-60, or that people who are on welfare are lazy.
The problem is (and my Muslim friends, please pay attention because this next part concerns you also), we have spent so long letting this "vocal minority" (the bigots-with-bullhorns), do the talking for us, that now everyone thinks they represent the majority of the party. It's our own fault really for not putting a stop to it earlier, now I'm afraid it may be too late; the "toothpaste is out of the tube" as it were.
We've let extreme religious fundamentalists corrupt our parties values, so much so that now being a "conservative" is nearly synonyms with Christian Fundamentalism. We let people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, with their vile, ignorant rhetoric, become our mouthpiece; we just assumed that everyone would see them for what they were, and that they would just eventually go away... we were wrong. We sat by silently while these "Conservatives" became the face of our party, and by our silence, they felt empowered; like the little kid who steals a cookie and then quickly looks around to see if he got away with it before doing it again.
We let corrupt corporate executives hide under the umbrella of capitalism, and the free markets, when all the while what they were really doing, was robbing us blind. We were accomplices after the fact, with Enron, Goldman Sachs, and even Bernie Madoff; we didn't assist them, but we certainly didn't stop them either.
Moderate Republicans (who make up the vast majority of the party) are victims of our own creation; we're the Dr. Frankenstein of National Politics. Now, whenever someone criticizes the current state of affairs in the GOP, they're attacked and accused of being a "liberal apologist". Anyone who has the audacity to think that the separation of Church and State means that there should actually be some "separation" between the two, is branded a secular, atheistic freak, and nearly run out on rails. This is who we've let represent our party,
"But Brutus is an honorable man".
What being a Republican actually means (if I may be so bold as to speak for my party for a moment), is that we believe in personal liberty; whatever form that may take. That the right for people to do as they please, and to pursue happiness in what ever manner works best for them (so long as it doesn't injure/harm anyone else) is a fundamental human right. It means that we believe in a limited Federal Government; one that focuses on protecting the Nation, and making sure that the playing field is level for everyone, but then it get's out of the way and lets the free market system thrive.
It's a belief that the Federal Government has no business getting involved in regulating love; that when we say "all men are created equal", that doesn't come with a qualifier. If churches and other religious institutions choose not to preform ceremonies for gay couples on religious grounds, then that's their right; but if the Government chooses to recognize my marriage to my wife, then equal protection demands that it recognize the marriage of a gay/lesbian couple also. That there is no greater display of patriotism, or love of Country, than to serve in the Armed Forces, and that those who choose to do so deserve our undying gratitude, not our scorn for who they happen to love.
It's the knowledge that not everyone is afforded the same opportunities in life, and that things happen, and from time to time people may need the assistance of the Government to survive. That doesn't mean that those in need should be ridiculed, or exploited for political gain; and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be made to feel like second class citizens.
It's understanding that success in America is there for any and all who are willing to work for it. It's knowing that success is not a zero-sum game; just because others may have more than you, that doesn't mean that they somehow got it dishonestly, or by holding others back. It's taking personal responsibility for your life, and not blaming others because they have something that you don't. Success is something to aspire to in the country, not something to vilify or demonize.
As I said to start with, I know this is a little long, so I'll hop down off of the soapbox, I just wanted to toss in my humble opinion on the subject.
The truth is that the Obama campaign is in serious trouble. Anything will be used to deflect attention away from this fact. All that is left is a few straws to grasp at!
I look at more like the American people are in serious trouble and the political remedy we have is inadequate to address it. The election of a new president has little to do with the solution than the price of tea in China. Our country is being run by mega corporations and the banks and they make up the rules and issues the politicians promote as our major problems. Money is the clout that gets things done and nothing has been done to restrict or even judiciously address the situation. Guess what? That is by design.
The United States of America is being transformed in to a fascist Oligarchy, everyone knows this, some live in denial, some feel helpless, but the reality is there for all to see!
While the federal government of the United States presents a reasonable threat to the people of America. The future may hold a reasonable threat for the rest of the globe as well. The centralization of control is well under way. I am not sure it can be stopped.
Gosh, probably the same reason Democrats are viewed as a bunch o' hippies, college students, and poor people, who try so hard to be PC it's sickening!
People draw conclusions... People think Republicans are anti gay simply because they are against gay marriage (not againt gay civil unions, gay people, and gays being gays; just ONE thing).
I would say that the "Republicans are racists" thing comes from Republicans wanting to slam down on illegal immigration, which, in the eyes of the opposition, means they hate Hispanics and other immigrants.
I would also say that the "Republicans are racists" thing comes from idiots who think Obama is their golden boy, and how could anyone *not* vote for him? Oh, they must be "racists" because he is black!There are more black Republicans than is known via media hack. Most, unlike me, don't admit to being so because they fear peer reaction. In the voting booths where everyone is allowed to vote their rathers without sanction, many black and white liberals turn conservative.
I for one think that white liberals are racist in that they think they have the responsibility to "take care" of black people because we are unable to think for and care for ourselves. I also think that most liberals have a vested interest in going along with status quo, politically correct BS.
I have formed an educated opinion that most liberals are mentally incompetent. Oh, how often am I in a position to recall the Woodstock like characters I hung out with in college.I agree that there seems to be a tendency to make a case that any Black Republican is somehow lacking in their culture. They aren't "Black" enough. How else could they possibly be Republican?! As if there aren't any poor Republicans. Trust me, the entire Republican Party is not made up of the Top Earners of the country.
It's always nice to hear someone admit that they go against the mainstream; it's very brave and should be celebrated rather than criticized. Over the years I have met so many people, black and white, who have felt ashamed to admit that they are actually conservative but have to pretend in front of people that they are 'open-minded' liberals. Somehow being a Republican makes you a bigot and a nut, so it's cooler to be a liberal until voting time. But you know what? As long as the votes favor the Republicans in the end, that's ok; tell people whatever you want! That's why polls are so off sometimes...
KK Trainor, why are you a Republican? I know that question usually seems sarcastic or antagonistic, but it's not, and I want to know.
You want my platform? Funny...
I am pro life
I believe that success should be rewarded and those with it should be able to decide how to distribute their wealth to the poor, needy, etc., or not at all
I believe everyone should pay income taxes, including the lower income levels
I don't think that the rich should feel guilty or be punished for their wealth
I want everyone to have a decent education, which means teachers should not be allowed to keep their jobs just because they have tenure
I think unions are obsolete and only drive up the costs of business and taxes, leaving the rest of us to pay for overly generous benefits packages
I think social programs should only be available to those who actually need them, which means fraud should be investigated without the investigators being called racist or evil
I think medicare and social security should be means tested
That's all for now, I'm trying to watch the news and can't concentrate that well.You're welcome. Just worrying about my friends in NOLA who decided to 'ride it out', so crazy.
Wow, I can't imagine how stressful that must be, for them and you
. I've never had to ride out something that bad, only Man-Yi in 2007 but it was already downgraded when it hit. I'll pray for them!
Sounds to me you're a victim of the Tea Party Syndrome. http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it
Oh please. I majored in Political Science in college, in the 80's, and have held my beliefs for a very long time. I am not swayed by protesters or by the media. I make up my own mind about things.
There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and being proud of it, even if it's held in disdain here on Hubpages.
Hi KK. I hope you are doing well this evening.
I just want to briefly let you know that my eligibility for social security benefits was means tested every payday for over fifty years. Forty social security credits and my age make me eligible for full retirement benefits that are based upon my life-time earnings and not on my current assets or income. That has always been the government's promise to working Americans.I say this because I know that many who could easily live without Social Security actually collect the benefits that they earned by working. Ok, I understand that you paid into the system (not you, I mean generally) but why not let it benefit those who don't have the retirement savings that others have? I know that sounds very liberal, and i'm definitely not a liberal, but I have seen the payments go to those who don't need them (family members of mine...) and I think it's wasted money. I would rather it fullfill it's purpose and pay those who actually need it.
- PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago
0From my perspective, I don't believe Republican=white=racist. I do see that racism exists and that people who I would consider to be racist are more likely to be Republicans. That does not mean that I think all or even a significant portion of Republicans are racist. What I do notice is that too many Republicans, rather than acknowledge that racism exists within their own party and elsewhere, will deny that it even exists. This does not help the Republican party in any way; instead, it fosters the belief that Republicans are not willing to distance themselves from that small but very vocal faction in their party that truly is racist. It's sad, really, what has happened to the GOP in recent years.
"Liberal institutions, such as the media, universities, federal courts, and human rights organizations, which have traditionally functioned as checks on the blind obedience to authority, have in our day gone over to power's side. The subversion of these institutions has transformed them from checks on power into servants of power. The result is the transformation of culture from the rule of law to unaccountable authority resting on power maintained by propaganda."
Interesting quote.
Could be from Nazi Germany.
Could be from modern USA.
or.....?
Romney is appealing to the whites because he needs 71% of them to get elected. His dissed the blacks at the NAACP conference, telling them that he would end Obamacare--and thier new insurance policies.
He dissed the Mexican/Latinos by not picking el gran Cubano, Senator Marco Rubio. This was done because the Koch Brothers insisted on taking the party to the extreme right. They donated, alledgedly, $100 million when Mitt said OK. It should be noted that if the Ryan Budget does get through the Koch brothers mak $1 billion a year every year in tax breaks on their $40 billion income.
So, the Republicans are the party that is dictated to by white, builly millionaires.But probably only 40% of the true believers are racists."HOUSTON — A federal court in Washington ruled on Tuesday that political maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in Texas discriminated against minority voters, a decision that black and Hispanic groups claimed as a victory and the state attorney general vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court....
"They denied granting so-called preclearance to the maps, because in some cases districts drawn to look like Hispanic ones on paper would actually perform to the benefit of candidates preferred by white voters."
Why African-American and Hispanic voters vote Democratic isn't a mystery. The change began with GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in contrast to Lyndon Johnson's support for minority rights issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/fe … f=politics- HowardBThinameposted 11 years ago0
It's great to see such a wonderful lady get such an enthusiastic welcome at the RNC.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/2 … n_ref_map=[] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ … an.php?m=1
Yeah, it sure is a nice welcome. I love it when people assault me.Duhhh...could it be the most cases of overt, virulent racism in half a century? Perhaps it is the desire to exterminate or deport people of color. Maybe it's the racism of the Birthers, who will not check their own birth certificates.
Then again, it could be the monkey photos, the blatant disrespect for a sitting president, and the uncalled for racism directed at the First lady and the children.
What about Boehner wishing that Black and Hispanic voters would not show up to vote on Election day.
Oh my, the list goes on. Anyone who whines that Republicans are being called racist does not realize that they are racists. At that point, I disengage because I realize that I am either dealing with the corrupt or I am dealing with the mentally ill.Mad about Obama monkey photos?
Anyone remember the Bush monkey photos?
But you have to admit there is a difference in comparing a black man to a monkey than comparing a white man to a monkey...
I feel both are wrong but there is history with the other...I cannot admit that, because there really is no difference. You are comparing a person to a monkey. It's probably got nothing to do with their race, and everything to do with 4Chan and other such websites. There are a handful of political figures, of all colors, that have been edited to look like animals on the internet. Saying that it is racist because the subject happens to be black is pretty racist in itself. The monkey photos have nothing to do with color, and everything to do with Obama's political stance.
I am talking about the history of calling black people monkeys...you cannot deny that has not been the case.
Love the double speech... point out the history of racism and it means you are a racist.
Maybe that is how you take that picture, but many do not take it that way and to deny that is dishonest.
http://www.authentichistory.com/diversi … index.htmlMany people who are alive today do not remember the racism of the past. Chances are, those photos were made by young people, who populate such sites. They were not intended to be racist. They were intended to take away credit from Obama by comparing him to a monkey. The Bush pictures had the same basis. I laughed at both the photos, personally.
Edit: And racism works both ways. You can say someone is racist because they made fun of a black person, but you can also say they are racist because they think black people are better than everybody else.Well, you are free to believe what you want... as are others.
Anybody remember when Howard Cosell was suspended for calling an African American NFL football player a monkey. As I recall he said "Look at that little monkey run!" or words to that effect.
I see Kathleenkat is playing dumb today.
I don't know about that; but I do know that she can't win here because no one (lefty) will admit that any parody of Bush was not justified while insisting that every parody of Obama is completely racist and disgusting.
Bush is the bad guy, Obama is the savior. (puke)Well, as I said it was in bad taste too. I believe in showing respect for the office of the presidency.
I repeat:
I feel both are wrong but there is history with the other..
I actually had respect for the office of the presidency and I've always believed the office deserves respect, regardless of who is there.
If the images were of Obama as Ronald McDonald, or as the guy from Mad Magazine I would not call that racist. The other has a history that any person who has any clue about history cannot deny.
I am sorry I am always disproving your blanket statements...You haven't disproven anything, so don't worry about it.
Everyone knows about history, at least they should because even the young people are indoctrinated these days into the 'white people are the bad guys' line in public school. That doesn't mean that every criticism of Obama is racist, and sometimes people use pictures of monkeys because monkeys are goofy and it makes the person look dumb. Why else would someone use one for Bush? Were they trying to make him look like a black person who came from a monkey? How ridiculous.
Obviously liberals are just typically reactionary and over sensitive to anything they could possibly find to be racism. Just makes them look even dumber than they look when they talk about how evil rich people are...I can't begin to explain how opinionated this post is. You have some valid points, but most of these statements are blanket statements.
I did disprove your blanket statement about "leftys". I have never called rich people evil either...unless they are in prison for murder or stealing someone's life savings...
- SassySue1963posted 11 years ago0
lol@disrespect for a sitting President. I'm guessing you either 1. didn't have an issue with anyone disrespecting Bush Jr. or 2. just weren't paying attention. Let's see now. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in 2008 in Philly and Holder had the charges dismissed. The Black Panthers literally called for a hit on Zimmerman and nothing was done. Jeremiah Wright and the Black Panthers have repeatedly called for "whites to die" "you're going to have to kill some whites" but those things are not racist in your mind nor have nothing to do with the attitude of some lately. It is clear you skim headlines and never actually read the articles either. Boehner did NOT say he hoped they would not show up to vote. He was asked about winning over such voters. He said that they may not vote for Romney however, being discouraged by the last four years, may not to show up to vote for Obama either.
I actually had respect for the office of the presidency and I've always believed the office deserves respect, regardless of who is there.
The Black Panthers are a meaningless organization of very few people whose actions have been made larger than they every were by people who have an agenda. Black men standing outside a polling booth is not intimidation. They would not have stopped me from voting.The racist response to Mia Love's speech was beyond belief.
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/29/sick-wiki … se-nigger/It is absolutely typical of the left, no surprise at all. They hate black people who turn to the Republican party and will say anything to drive them from the public eye in shame. Discrediting is their favorite way to do this (Cain = pervert, Clinton = hero), but if there is no dirt they just simply resort to the most vile and repulsive name calling they can think of.
Republicans are racist? Please.From what are you basing your opinions on?
GiancarloLorenzo, take a look at the link and tell me who the racists are...
How is that typical though? Is every liberal that way?
Certainly not *every* liberal is that way. Do you honestly think he meant that? Or are you just picking apart his statements?
Just as not *every* republican is racist, either. Isn't that how this discussion started? No need to pick apart blanket statements, just see them for what they are, and realize that they actually do have some basis in truth.What is typical is that they ignore those among them who spew hatred and racism while condemning conservatives as racists.
Unless you don't watch the news you probably know that most blacks who end up running for office as Republicans or working in Rep. administrations are called horrible names, as the article illustrates. (there are many other examples if you'd like a list, but I'd rather not spend the time since you can find them yourself if you care to) Whether it's someone nominated for the Supreme Court by a Republican President or someone who becomes the first black Secretary of State, their association with the Republicans is usually enough for this treatment by the left.
How, please tell me, is that not racism? Please, I'd really like someone to explain that to me. Not by saying they are isolated incidents, because they aren't. How is that not racism?It is racist. There are Democrats that say racist things. Factually, true. But, that doesn't mean Republicans are perfect.
Who said anyone was perfect? I'm just trying to get someone to admit that all of this crap about Republicans being the racists is just that, crap. Racists are everywhere, in every race,nationality and every economic level of society. I'm so tired of conservative blacks being run through a meat grinder when they decide to go public and 'admit' that they agree with Republicans. It's ridiculous.
I watch the news. Those people you speak of(that call Republicans horrible names) make up what percent of liberals in the United States?
And I agree. I don't think every Republican is racist, and if they are racist, I don't really care if they are.
It seems to me you guys are being just as judgmental about liberals, as liberals are when calling Republicans racists. Neither is good.
Fighting fire with fire doesn't help alleviate the situation.
Just in case nobody noticed:
whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/wh … wanted=all
The right has always been keen on immigration (cheap labor) but it will find itself up against it in the polls unless it changes all those policies that perpetuate gross inequality.What are you talking about? I mean the 'policies that perpetuate gross inequality'. What are those and how are they owned by the right? Just wondering what you mean.
Tax loopholes tailored to benefit the rich--hedge fund operators and private equity investors like Romney's Bain Capital, oil billionaires like the Koch brothers who benefit from the oil depletion allowance, untaxed foreign earnings by U.S. corporations, anti-collective bargaining policies, vicious cuts in Medicaid, attempts to "privatize Social Security (i.e.turn SS tax collections over to the Wall Street banksters) plans to change Medicare into a voucher system which would mean that eligible citizens would eat future health care cost increases, just to name a few.
None of those things bother me. And I don't believe they perpetuate inequality. If someone wants to be as rich as the Koch brothers then he needs to get off his ass and get to work. Then he will have the power to change things.
That is fxxk the poor and screw the middle class. Typical.
Of course, that's exactly what all Republicans want. We hate poor people and want to keep them poor. We couldn't possibly know any poor people because we are all rich, so why shouldn't we hate them all? None of us has ever worked from the bottom and made a success out of nothing. We all inherited money and were born with silver spoons in our mouths. We don't think poor people deserve anything more than what they have, which is nothing. We cheat the IRS and don't think we should even have to pay taxes. Let the poor pay all the taxes and we'll just take advantage of that, even though they make very little money so the taxes paid wouldn't come close to covering the nation's expenses. We want to get rid of all welfare programs because poor people should be hungry and cold and their children should suffer right along with them. We all send our kids to expensive private schools so we don't even want to fund the Education dept. anymore, why should poor people get free schooling? As for the middle class, they are just as bad as the poor. How can they expect to ever move up when they refuse to work hard? We hate them too, because we don't want to have to help them climb the ladder to success. That's their problem, not ours.
See, I'm a 'typical' Republican. Right?Not all Republicans are rich tax dodgers. Many Republican evangelicals are seduced by the billionaires who feed them with homophobic, racist and anti-women's choice, nativist social issues Whatever it takes.
Oh yes, I forgot. We hate black people and gay people more than anything. We always try to think up ways to make their lives as miserable as possible. And as for women, even those of us who are women hate other women. We want to make our own lives miserable as well.
Please inform us of your position on
1. Abortion
2. Immigration reform
3. Climate change
4. Second Amendment rights
5. Medicaid
6, Medicare
7. Obama care
8. Tax loopholes for multimillionaires like Romney
9. Creationism or "intelligent" design.
10. Voter photo I.D.
11. Affirmative action (where minorities have been excluded)I will oblige:
Pro life; abortion is murder
Immigration is great, legally; no amnesty
No such thing as man made climate change; earth is in charge
Guns are great, we have several
Medicaid is fine, people need it; but it should be for citizens only
Medicare is brokeen and must be cut back; too bad for me and my peers
Obama care is a disaster and will break us; some parts are ok but others must be repealed
Tax loopholes are a problem (but not illegal) and I wish we could go to a flat tax for everyone
I am a Christian and believe God created everything, including the beginnings of humankind, whatever they looked like
Photo id has been described by the Supreme Court as something that is not too much of a burden in exchange for the privilege of voting; therefore it should be required, provided for free is necessary
Affirmative Action had it's day, but whites are no longer the majority so why does anyone need an advantage anymore? Why not achieve based on your own merit these days?OOoh, a survey! I'll cut in...
1. Abortion; not as a means of birth control. Many women get abortions because they don't "feel like" having a baby, or think it will impact their career, yadda yadda. If you are over 21 and not raped, mentally ill, or otherwise ill, if you make the choice to have sex you really don't have an excuse to terminate a pregnancy. So, yes on teens, rape victims, mentally ill, and otherwise ill. No on everyone else.
2. Immigration reform: Maybe we should make it easier for people to get documentation, then they wouldn't come here illegally. Just sayin'.
3. Climate change: It's 'a changin'.
4. Second amendment rights: There are many successful, forward-thinking countries that don't let everyday citizens have guns. Why should we be any different? Make it harder to get a license. Make people take more safety classes.
5. Medicaid: Why should we pay for you? It's not our fault you're poor.
6. Medicare: They paid into it their entire lives; they deserve it. We're paying into it now, and we deserve it later.
7. Obamacare: Unneccesary.
8. Tax Loopholes: I think we should ALL pay the same percentage of taxes on TAXABLE income. Romney has a lot of non-taxable income, and he is smart enough to make a very good living off of such stuff; good for him. Not our business.
9. Creationism: Not relevant to politics, and shouldn't be in public schools because church =/= state.
10. Voter Photo ID: Not a bad idea, but first would need to have a requirement of obtaining photo ID upon turning 18. That way we'd all have IDs. Not that it matters, because I don't know anyone that doesn't vote via the mail.
11. Affirmative Action: All citizens have equal rights and oportunities (unless criminal), so, why should we favor you because you're a different color?OMG, someone who thinks like me for the most part; you must be an evil Republican too. Yippee!!
I agree with you on the abortion thing pretty much; had too many college roomates getting abortions way too often so it sortof molded me I guess.
I live in immigrant central and am tired of supporting those who pay no income taxes, although I suppose there are those who are legal and pay none either.
Climate may change, but not because of me or you.
No one is taking our guns away. Husband is a cop, I am home at night alone. We both need our protection. We are both well trained though and everyone should be.
Medicaid, yikes, you're cold!
Medicare won't be there anyway, no matter how much we are paying now.
Agree on Obamacare. I wonder how my sisters in law will be paying for insurance now; they are grown women but have none and couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.
Agree on taxes of course.
Religion is private.
Voter id and affirmative action; agree.
I can't believe it!!You both suffer from the "Tea Party Syndrome." The cure: read the NYTimes daily for the next three years.
Oh Lord no! Can't do that.
On the affirmative action thing though; I think it must have been a while since you went to work at that firm. There aren't too many places anymore that are lily white, especially in the South. Especially in law enforcement! The only thing white guys have going for them when applying at those is military experience, since it helps one get hired most of the time.
Universities for sure I suppose, that's a problem with tenure also though.
I guess I'm lucky to live in the South, although I have lived in many states all over the place, because here at least people don't necessarily think you're crazy if you're conservative. But there is diversity here, much as some don't like to believe it. Texas is a haven for immigrants from all over the world because of the great economy. Plus the illegals of course, but they are a minority compared to the legal ones.The company was General Motors. I started work there in 1960, in the GM Building in Detroit. The segregation was almost as complete in Detroit as it was in Baton Rouge where I grew up.
I didn't know you were a Louisianan!
My dad spent a lot of time in Baton Rouge.
There was (not sure if still there) a paper mill there.
Sorry for the random comment.So, the fact that Ralph is from Louisiana changes.......exactly what? what you have to say to him? And I can't help but comment on the 'paper mill' mention - do you think all the south is so backward that a 'paper mill' is a real big deal. LOL. Baton Rouge is not exactly a backwater..........at the very least, educate yourself on the progressiveness of major southern cities, like since before your were born... or take a nap and spare your party such comments.
Geez, what the heck did I do to deserve that?
I know about the paper mill because my dad worked there.
What in the world that has to do with being backward, my party, or needing a nap.
Put the gun down, lady.
Awfully presumptuous of you.
I am not a Republican (nor am I a Democrat). I vote independently. I use my brain to read things and understand things, and to make informed decisions on my ballot, regardless of political party. Anyone who votes for Obama "because they are Democratic" is close-minded.
Oh, and I grew up in New York. I read the Times on a daily basis for many years, as it was delivered to my front doorstep.
Lastly, you are undermining my views and opinions by labeling them "Tea Party Syndrome." I have not watched, read, or listened to any media created by the Tea Party. I came up with these views on my own, by reading about these issues, from the horse's mouth. If I want information on Obama, I will go to his official website. If I want information on the Second Amendment, I'll read the Bill of Rights before listening to anyone else's interpretation. I also came up with many of my views via personal experience. I know what it feels like to be taxed a higher percentage because I started making more money. I know what it's like to have my health premiums skyrocket because my insurance company now has to pay for all these free check-ups and birth control for women (what a moot point, I get a free visit as a woman, but I am paying more for insurance, so, kinda evens out).
You have no right to imply that I am misinformed. Why don't you take the time to see where I am coming from, rather than accusing me of being blinded by Tea Party media?He did it to me too, although I have never watched or read anything related to the Tea Party. It just happens that my views are similar to those of the Tea Party. So what?
I don't even see it as an insult, I'm proud of my beliefs and don't let anyone tell me what my views are.Amen to that!
I don't let anyone tell me what to believe. I read and I think. If everyone employed critical thinking, there would probably be a lot less judgements going on around here.
"All citizens have equal rights and opportunities (unless criminal), so, why should we favor you because you're a different color?"
I agree except in the case of employers, universities, police forces, etc, who are lily white because they have been discriminating for years. I worked for a major U.S. corporation which in 1960 had virtually no minorities in its corporate headquarters--not one secretary, engineer, accountant, manager--zero. The only minorities were a couple of elevator operators and some laborers. Moreover, there were no women engineers, managers, skilled trades employees--Zero. All the secretaries were white women. That was about as high has a woman could go except for a couple of librarians. This situation was remedied by affirmative action including "goals and timetables" imposed by the 1954 Civil Rights Act which was opposed by the GOP candidate for president--Barry Goldwater.@Ralph Your reply says it all. "in 1960". We can all agree that Affirmative Action had its place and time. It was sorely needed then. It is not now and only results in reverse discrimination. It is not equality to trade one form of discrimination for another. Personally, I don't believe any school/job should be allowed to even ask your ethnic background on an application. Sure, they may well discover it at the interview but at least the application process would be free of any discrimination at all.
So you think discrimination in the workplace doesn't exist anymore?
No I think there are Federal Laws and the EEOC to handle it if it does occur As I said, the answer to discrimination isn't just to create a different type of discrimination.
Okay, I'll play.
1. I think early abortion should be safe and legal. Late term abortion should be illegal, except under extreme circumstances.
2. Legal immigration should be made easier. I don't think lawbreakers should be rewarded.
3. The climate is DEF changing! I believe it's a combination of nature and man.
4. I'm strong pro-2nd Amendment - for safe gun ownership/use. I don't see any need for assault rifles.
5. I think we need Medicaid, but the fraud should be addressed more vigorously.
6. Medicare HAS to be reformed!
7. I like some parts of Obamacare, but it concerns me that every doctor and nurse I've asked about ACA hates it. I do, however, like the idea of every citizen's having healthcare.
8. Tax loopholes need to be addressed, but I don't blame rich folks for taking advantage of LEGAL loopholes. I'm for doing away with the IRS and going to a national sales tax. That's the only way to get govt. revenue from illegal money.
9. Creationism, like all aspects of religion, should be personal and private. I believe in evolution, but I also believe in God. I don't see the two beliefs as being diametrically opposed.
10. I support voter ID...BUT I think IDs should be free and easy to obtain. I also think people should be given plenty of time to get IDs before an election.
11. I have mixed feelings about affirmative action. You see, it should work both ways. For example, there are goverment offices here in the South that hire 90% blacks. Is that fair? I was a victim of "reverse racism" once, and I didn't like it. The (government) employer admitted that I was much more qualified and experienced for the job, but she said they really needed a black female in the position. That being said, there was a real need for AA in the past. As for AA in colleges and universities, some of my black students felt it was a "slap in the face" to them. Several came back to see me after entering college to complain that they were given extra points on applications to various schools. They said that made them feel like they weren't equal to white students.
Republican National Convention on Tuesday night ejected 2 attendees for racist acts. That is a good thing but one can't help but wonder why did they feel it was ok to do these things?
http://now.msn.com/african-american-cam … d=ansnow11Why did someone on the left edit Mia Love's Wiki page last night to call her vile racist names after her speech?
People do stupid and horrible things. On both sides. At least they were kicked out. Whoever did those things to Ms. Love won't be caught I suppose.Your comments Don't Really Answer the question,
How can anyone answer it except the people who were kicked out? No one here knows what was going through their minds. Or did you just want someone to say that they are typical Republican racists and that is the explanation?
The initial question:
"Why does Republican=White=Racist in so many people's minds?"
Implies that racism in the Republican Party is alien so he is confused by peoples view of such acts.
I say one can set up an environment where people are comfortable executing illegal and inappropriate behavior. The Tea Party is a relatively recent example of how people can feel comfortable enough to do what they do.
I think a large part of the belief comes from the Democratic party pushing that belief, and the media is all to happy to help. For example, when MSN was covering the RNC convention, every time there was a speaker who was not white (such as Herman Cian and Bobby Jindal), MSN stopped airing the RNC and went to "commentary".
I live in a small town outside of Cincinnati, and when I have gone to the tea party rallies in Cincinnati, I saw plenty of people of color. I also have many friends who are not white who typically vote Republican. So, at least in my experience, it is a myth that the left pushes.Why? Because Republicans symbolize big business, business friendly tax laws & breaks, helping the rich & wealthy get even fatter and leaving out or cutting funds for urban social programs, public schools, and infrastructure.
I do know many African-American (white collar) and Latinos (blue & white collar) who vote Republican since they represent a better economy and job creation. I believe Bush/Cheney messed up so bad is the reason why Obama won. Now Obama has not turned much around, well neither party could in 3 or 4 years after Bush's terms. Most experts (who have called other recessions too) believe this will be a 10 yr+ depression/recession in real estate (and the economy).
Racists? No. It is more of just preservation of capital and the status quo. They do have prominent Black and minority politicians who are Republicans so the racist part is out but the greed part is always inclusive.
I am pro neither party. However, during Clinton's time I became more affiliated with supporting democrats. Today I am neutral.Is this is a nauseatingly self congratulatory thread of mutually delusional individuals or am I missing something?
Perhaps it is the dead who are under-represented.
But then they would be the undeserving dead. Since they were poor and vulnerable.
'Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.'
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/heal … =PM:HEALTH
It is sad that the US cannot afford to attend to these unnecessary deaths.
But then a tax cut means you can spend more time at the Mall!!That study is from 2009. Another was conducted in 2010 that came 26,000. Then another group tried to make sense of all the data (which is spuriously collected at best) and came to a figure of a 25% increase in risk without insurance. What all reports ignore is one tiny little fact: Many do not have insurance by choice. Some could afford it but do not want to spend the money. Some qualify for Medicaid but do not take the time to apply., The truth is we really do not have any reliable numbers.
- SassySue1963posted 11 years ago0
We don't. What would you like me to do? Conduct my own study? They simply do not track the statistics necessary to make any informed analysis. It is based on speculation and data needed to analyze the information correctly is not collected.
Of course, the numbers are not verifiable anyway. Let's say X has cancer. He does not have insurance so he finds out later than Y. Both ultimately die from said cancer. Are you counting this as a death because of lack of insurance? Some people qualify for Medicaid. For their own reasons, they do not ever apply. Are you counting any deaths that occur from these people? And how would you even verify that information? Are you going to compile the deaths of those who have insurance and those who don't, compare percentages, break it down by type of death, how many with insurance simply did not go to the doctor? It is an impossible figure to arrive at any verifiable accurate statistic.Obviously, interest in the subject is minimal in the US, whereas oddly enough. health stats are highly regarded and vigorously researched in most countries.
Would you guesstimate that the number of unnecessary deaths in the US was in the region of 100,000, 50.000 or the rather amazingly low 26.000 area in the last year? I say amazingly low because recessions hit health hard, even in countries where health care is easy to access for everyone.
"Why does Republican=White=Racist in so many people's minds?....."
Because that is what has been molded into the minds of people..............I love it!! Where did you find that? Fabulous.
- khmohsinposted 11 years ago0
Hi Every one.
I think it is the thought of depressed persons. They reflect their own deeds. The truth is far more different.
The thinking capability from person to person varies. Narrow mindedness leads towards racisms.
Related Discussions
- 56
Republicans only -define racism and name one or more racists.
by Lela Cargill 7 years ago
Paul Ryan stated that Trump's accusation of his Judge's bias due to his Mexican heritage was the very definition of racism, but he still supports the Republican nominee. Why can't he just call Trump a racist? And admit that racism is rampant in the Republican party.
- 309
Trump is a Racist and the Republican Party is avoiding the truth
by Tiffany Payne 4 years ago
No matter what you say or how you say it Trump is 100% racist and os feeding off the attention. From the squad to Cummings he wants nothing but to divide us. Sadly it’s working this issue has nothing to do with party but right and wrong. Do you think silence from his party indicates they are too...
- 110
Rush Limbaugh is REALLY crazy ("nuts" would be a better word)
by fishskinfreak2008 15 years ago
Limbaugh has gone too far with his latest attack on Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy: ""Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill". THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. Rush, it's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but this statement makes it sound like...
- 36
Post Mortem-So why did Romney lose?
by Credence2 11 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet. Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting,...
- 26
Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?
by Charles James 13 months ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
- 20
Why Do A Majority Of Black American's Vote Democratic?
by Sharlee 3 days ago
The historical bond between the Democratic Party and the Black community in the United States is rich and complex, marked by pivotal moments and initiatives, particularly in the 1960s, that underscore Democrats' support for Black citizens. In this brief overview, I will present a condensed timeline...