Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ] |
| Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
Author: sammy | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:12:52 12/13/02 Fri In reply to: Dan 's message, "Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P." on 19:40:32 12/13/02 Fri i'll try to keep this short, and say that if you want to continue this discussion, dan, what better time than next friday? "... they come to the Republicans. The Republicans do not go in search of them." i can't, in good conscience, agree with such a statement. why was trent lott (alledgedly) a dues paying member of the previoiusly mentioned council of conservative citizens (which, incidentally, just offered an amicus brief in support of the right to burn a cross, in the recent supreme court case dealing with the issue)? if you want to discount trent lott as an example, why would john ashcroft make the statement (to the neo-confederate, white supremacist magazine "southern partisan"), "your magazine also helps set the record straight. you've got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots like [robert e.] lee, [stonewall] jackson and [confederate president jefferson] davis. traditionalists must do more. i've got to do more. we've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda"? this is a quote i got off of the fairness and accuracy in reporting website, so please take that into consideration before trying to bring context into the picture. by all means, please check the site for yourself: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html and context aside, if republicans do not go in search of "them" why would ashcroft even make ANY statement to such an obviously racist publication? perhaps a better example: why did george w. bush go to bob jones university to deliver a speech during the south carolina primary in 2000? again, if the party didn't go in search of these people, why would bush feel a need to give a speech at that particular university (after losing the nh primary to john mccain)? and to offer up the example of extreme environmentalists, my whole point is that these "extremists" do not rise to positions of power within the democratic party. and also, in response to your statement that "these views are extreme right views," i would just like to point out that i don't believe racism can be classified as an extreme right view. for starters, there are racist ideas in both parties. racism defies political/ideological classification. somehow, however, people who we have agreed (at least lott and thurmond)are racist have been able to rise to positions of power within the republican party. actually, that was the only thing i said sucked in my original post. oh, and if you're going to say that thurmond was never allowed to gain too much power, are you arguing that chairman of such committes as judiciary and armed services aren't positions of power? to end, i think we can both agree, unless otherwise told, that our long posts back and forth have been sucky for all those who aren't the least bit interested in any of this. however, i must say that i think it sucks that anybody would not be interested, at all, in government (or at least voting in every major election). also, it sucks that i started this post with the words, "i'll try to keep this short," left out so many things i wanted to say, and still managed to write such a long-ass counter to some of the points brought up by dan. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:03:50 12/14/02 Sat I wholeheartedly agree that it sucks anyone would not be interested in the inner workings of THEIR government. I also believe it sucks that these people are the ones who generally complain most about the system. Now, for the sake of everyone else, I will keep this exceptionally short. So, if you think it sucks that I am cutting this debate off in favor of continuing it at Christmas dinner Friday, I am sorry. I'm going to quote Joe Souceray here. "Lott does not represent the typical Republican attitude on racial harmony any more than Bill Clinton represents the typical Democratic attitude on marital fidelity. Both parties have their share of morons, and we're sure getting to know quite a few of them lately." They both brought discredit to their party and the nation. Some housecleaning needs to be done, yes. But this is not a focused effort of the party. The rest of the column published in the Pioneer Press Friday can be found here: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/columnists/joe_soucheray/4726922.htm Whatever your thoughts on him, its a pretty good article. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:21:13 12/14/02 Sat i'm sorry, but i can't completely hold back on all of this until friday. dan, you are now focusing on trent lott, when i have brought up two other examples of questionable (at best) decisions by republican leaders, as they pertain to race in the united states. it sucks that you, apparently, didn't respond to any of my points in my last two posts (example: why did george w. bush go to bob jones university if, in fact, the republicans don't go to "them"?). and soucheray's quote is all well and good, but are we trying to equate racism with infidelity?? that analogy is completely rediculous, if only because BOTH parties have had their share of infidelity scandals amongst their leaders (the names gingrich and giuliani come to mind), but the republican party seems to have a monopoly on the racists (in leadership positions). your whole argument seems to be that both parties have morons, but that does nothing to explain WHY the republican morons are racist, and why those racists have been able to rise to positions of power. in other words, you are looking at the effect, and trying to deal with/explain that, instead of dealing with the cause. i think that sucks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |