Maryland Democrats Rampant Racism

RakuraiTenjin

RakuraiTenjin

Tank
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
8,099
Reaction score
-2
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

"Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. "

"This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel.

However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House." "


Horrible. Especially how they try to justify it or claim somehow there's no racism. Hopefully this shows their true agendas.
 
What the ****ing ****? That's insane.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Just wonderful. Nice one.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

"Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. "

"This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel.

However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House." "


Horrible. Especially how they try to justify it or claim somehow there's no racism. Hopefully this shows their true agendas.
Click to expand...
So, black people insulting other black people for supporting a party with a history of treating black people (well, minorities in general) poorly is considered racism? Sure, they're dicks... but it's not racism. They aren't showing a hatred of a specific race or support of black superiority. They are expressing disgust (albeit, harshly) at a black man for joining a group with a history of treating blacks poorly. It's not like they're hating some guy for joining a predominaltly white club rather than a predominantly black club. Both parties get their largest chunk of support from white people. They're both mostly rich white guys' clubs. It's based on the party's policies and previous actions. A much more extreme example, to help get the point across, would be a black man joining the KKK. You wouldn't expect other black people to speak fondly of him. Basically, what I'm saying is that the remarks are very harsh but not completely without merit.

EDIT: If there's some mention of white people being racist against black people or black people being racist against white people... please point it out. I read about two thirds of the article and didn't pick up anything of the sort.
 
Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr is black?

The actions like pelting him with oreo cookies are despicable and COMPLETELY uncalled for- akin to calling an asian guy a 'twinkie', just as racist. Apparantly things can only go one way and be racism.

And a history of treating black people poorly? You're mixing up parties there, bub. Republicans have throughout history been the party to protect civil rights.
 
What is the Republican Party now is not the historical "Republicans" you speak of...
 
Republicans have throughout history been the party to protect civil rights.
Click to expand...

Not in the fifties and sixties they weren't.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Republicans have throughout history been the party to protect civil rights.
Click to expand...

Which is a completely meaningless statement considering the changing politics of both Democrats and Republicans throughout the years.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Not in the fifties and sixties they weren't.
Click to expand...
Yes, in the 60's they were. Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until then, provide backing for your statements, because it's completely wrong.

PS: That act's voting contained many Democrats still in power today.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent).

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

Absinthe said:
Which is a completely meaningless statement considering the changing politics of both Democrats and Republicans throughout the years.
Click to expand...

Things haven't changed as much as you think, considering that this wasn't all that long ago and many of the same people are still involved within the same parties.
 
I'm referring to the whole timespan. To say that Republicans have always supported civil rights is as absurd as saying the same about Democrats.
 
If you guys think this is bad visit Southern Maryland sometime, we have maybe 5 or 6 black people, it's nice and racist down here, and incestual... but goddamn do i love it!
 
Absinthe said:
I'm referring to the whole timespan. To say that Republicans have always supported civil rights is as absurd as saying the same about Democrats.
Click to expand...
Considering Lincoln was the first Republican president, it's safe to say that throughout history, the Republican party has for the most part been the party defending civil rights.
 
The Democrats and the Republicans switched sides during the 20th century. Before then, the Republicans were the progressive party and the Democrats were the conservative party. Early Republicans would fit in better with today's Democrats. Political parties are not a static concept. The conservatives gained control of the Republican party, IIRC, around the time Reagan was elected. They're no longer the progressive party they once were. The names are the same... but the concepts are reversed. If you align yourself with today's Republicans while touting the achievements of the early Republicans you may be on the wrong side.
 
What Cybr said.

As a native of Maryland, I can't say I recall any prevalent sense of racism. Then again, I left it when I was 12.
 
OCybrManO said:
The Democrats and the Republicans switched sides during the 20th century. Before then, the Republicans were the progressive party and the Democrats were the conservative party. Early Republicans would fit in better with today's Democrats. Political parties are not a static concept. The conservatives gained control of the Republican party, IIRC, around the time Reagan was elected. They're no longer the progressive party they once were. The names are the same... but the concepts are reversed.
Click to expand...
Using conservative and liberal in the sense of time of course the liberals become conservatives once they've achieved power. However, the ideology has not shifted like you'd like to claim. If anything Goldwater's nomination can be seen as some sort of 'catalyst' for the Republican party, but this makes your point null- that was, you guessed it, 1964.

As Fremont put it, Republican party has always been the party of 'Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men'

It may be to the chagrin of democrats, socialists, and leftists, but to say the party has not been consistent is wrong. There is no evidence to back it up- voting records, people's policies, and laws support the sustained ideology.

"the Parties switched" is simply a catch term invented by democrats to try and deface Republicans. And I'm not defacing democrats of the time either, it was mostly the Southern ones influenced by the KKK. The majority still voted for the civil rights act- it was just a much larger majority of Republicans that did.
 
The Republican party sure hasn't been supporting free speech and free men lately.
 
Definitely way over the line, but it's really just the reverse of me making fun of wiggers.

I personally don't consider it racism if it's your own race.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Definitely way over the line, but it's really just the reverse of me making fun of wiggers.

I personally don't consider it racism if it's your own race.
Click to expand...
So it's not racism if I were to go up to a white person and say "YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A BLACK PERSON, STOP."?
 
If you ignore the recent years, yes, the Republican Party was consistent... but, after the conservatives took over, their goals shifted. Looking at today's Republicans and comparing their actions against that "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men" quote is almost laughable. They're damaging the environment, they're fighting against the workers, they're pushing for police-state-like control, they're pushing Christian behavior on everyone, they're supporting (and even running) dangerously corrupt companies like Enron/Halliburton/Harkin, they want to kill free speech and varied opinions in the news media by deregulating it and allowing a couple of huge companies to control every news outlet, and they want the USA to run the world (as they have outlined in their own words)... except they give a nice Orwellian name to their projects that make them sound good to the average person (or they try to pin a bad name on their opponents' legislature, as is the case with the estate tax... which they like to call the death tax to make people hate it before they even know what it is). The Republican Party, in recent years, has gone from the role of protector to the thing from which people need to be protected.

A quick way to see evidence of a shift in policies is to compare the electoral vote distribution by region over the years. In the beginning of the 20th century, the Republicans had a strangle-hold on the big urban and/or developing (and, typically, more educated) areas like New York, California, etc... while the Democrats controlled all of the rural areas. As time went on, the Republican influence spread out past the urban areas and the Democratic influence started eating away at the Republican support in the urban areas. In the mid-1900s it was pretty much a mixed bag. By the end of the century, they had completely switched places.

So it's not racism if I were to go up to a white person and say "YOU'RE ACTING LIKE A BLACK PERSON, STOP."?
Click to expand...
It would be more like going up to a white person and telling them to stop doing something that, in your opinion, is harmful to white people. If you think that "thug" culture is harmful and you told someone not to act like a "thug" because it contributes to violence and poor treatment of women that would be closer to the current situation. If you specifically attributed said "thug" culture specifically to black people and that was also your only reason for disliking it... that would be racist.

EDIT: Still, as I said, even though there is a hint of merit in them, their actions are extremely innapropriate... and, as such, they should be reprimanded.

EDIT 2: Also, I thought I should mention that I'm not pro-Democrat... I'm just anti-Republican. It's a lesser-of-two-evils situation.
 
meh ...read my sig:


"Latins for Republicans — it's like roaches for Raid." -- John Leguizamo


..I can see where he's coming from ..I just dont approve of the way they deliver their message
 
Absinthe said:
What Cybr said.

As a native of Maryland, I can't say I recall any prevalent sense of racism. Then again, I left it when I was 12.
Click to expand...
you must've never been down to SoMD
 
Clearly all rebulicans are racist, and the rebulican party stands for racism.

:|
 
Yes, in the 60's they were. Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until then, provide backing for your statements, because it's completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Well excuse me. I was simply referring to the fact that Johnson was a Democrat president and the bill was introduced by a Democrat (as far as I can tell from AS History lessons, he would be hailed as a hero if it wasn't for his incompetence in foreign policy matters, ie Vietnam). But point taken.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Yes, in the 60's they were. Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until then, provide backing for your statements, because it's completely wrong.

PS: That act's voting contained many Democrats still in power today.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent).

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."
Click to expand...
Please don't post things from conservative news sites, it really pisses people like me off. As usual this article you got from a conservative news source is a total fabrication. What that article doesn't point out is the break down between southern democrats and southern republicans. Democrats held a very large majority in the south which is why that vote is skewed. Here is the break down on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...&sbid=lc03b&linktext=Civil Rights Act of 1964

As you can see no southern Republicans voted for it opposed to the 7 democrats that did. Here is the break down for northern:

Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24

Northern Republicans actually voted more against it than the Democrats by a large margin.

Your article completely fabricates the data. I also hope you aren't forgetting that the president who signed the law was a democrat and he took a big political hit from doing so.
 
DeusExMachinia said:
The Republican party sure hasn't been supporting free speech and free men lately.
Click to expand...

Nobody has. The democrats just blasted the online freedom of speech bill.
The whole world is going to come crashing down into some authoritarian shithole and all the people will be scratching their heads wondering how the hell it happened- if they even notice. :sleep:
 
No Limit said:
Please don't post things from conservative news sites, it really pisses people like me off. As usual this article you got from a conservative news source is a total fabrication. What that article doesn't point out is the break down between southern democrats and southern republicans. Democrats held a very large majority in the south which is why that vote is skewed. Here is the break down on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...&sbid=lc03b&linktext=Civil Rights Act of 1964

As you can see no southern Republicans voted for it opposed to the 7 democrats that did. Here is the break down for northern:

Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24

Northern Republicans actually voted more against it than the Democrats by a large margin.

Your article completely fabricates the data. I also hope you aren't forgetting that the president who signed the law was a democrat and he took a big political hit from doing so.
Click to expand...
Vote totals:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Considering it was Republicans who were angry at Kennedy for not having provisions in the bill for true civil rights, the case is clear.

You can't bitch about sources if the info contained in them is true. There was no 'fabrication' :rolleyes:
 
Did you actually take the time to understand anything I said? You completely missed my point. The original article you posted, not wikipedia, is a total fabrication of the data. It takes it completely out of context and spins it the other way. You have to look at the region to accurately know the which party voted for what.
 
No Limit said:
Did you actually take the time to understand anything I said? You completely missed my point. The original article you posted, not wikipedia, is a total fabrication of the data. It takes it completely out of context and spins it the other way. You have to look at the region to accurately know the which party voted for what.
Click to expand...
The article never claimed southernerswere pro civil rights. The republicans overall proportionally more for it, though, and that's pure fact- no spin. Considering there were only 10 Republicans from the south anyway I'm sure if the same numbers existed of over 90 like the Democrats had at least 7 if not more would have voted for it.

The 87 Southern Democrats who voted against it can't simply be thrown away because a whopping 7 did.

Majorities of both parties supported the Civil Rights Act. But a larger percent of the Republican party did than the Democratic party.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
The article never claimed southernerswere pro civil rights. The republicans overall proportionally more for it, though, and that's pure fact- no spin. Considering there were only 10 Republicans from the south anyway I'm sure if the same numbers existed of over 90 like the Democrats had at least 7 if not more would have voted for it.

The 87 Southern Democrats who voted against it can't simply be thrown away because a whopping 7 did.

Majorities of both parties supported the Civil Rights Act. But a larger percent of the Republican party did than the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
You are not getting it. People in the south were deeply opposed to this act. Any republican or democrat would have voted against it in the south and in the north they would vote for it (by a large margin). The democrats held a huge majority in the south over 90 democrats to the 10 republicans. This completely skews the overall percentage.
 
bliink said:
Nobody has. The democrats just blasted the online freedom of speech bill.
The whole world is going to come crashing down into some authoritarian shithole and all the people will be scratching their heads wondering how the hell it happened- if they even notice. :sleep:
Click to expand...

Oh they did? Democrats barely do anything these days...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top