Jump to content

Why The Republicans Aren't Gaining Traction?


Recommended Posts

Does this nutjob REALLY think we're going to buy her explaination? I suppose there may be a few people that are that dumb. Why in the world would the Republicans condone it by letting her have it on their float? I don't care what they say about not being racist, this speaks volumes. And people wonder why I've abandoned the Republican Party. http://missoulian.com/articles/2009/08/11/...ocal/news04.prt

Bro' sign about Obama angers in Stevensville By SEPP JANNOTTA of the Ravalli Republic STEVENSVILLE - Parading with Bitterroot Valley Republican groups in her Hummer, Cathy Kulonis said she was exercising her First Amendment rights Saturday when she hoisted a sign reading “No Mo Bro” during Creamery Picnic festivities here. In response to angry requests to remove the sign, and contentions that it carried unsavory racial overtones regarding President Barack Obama, Kulonis held her ground, referring to those who complained as “red-faced maniacs” and “liberal extremists.” When the parade committee chairman requested that she remove her sign, she once again stood fast and refused to put it away. “I was just smiling and greeting everybody, when all of a sudden on my left I heard those people screaming, ‘You're a racist, take your sign down,' and I thought, ‘I'm not a racist,' ” Kulonis said. “Then a man came up and he said he was with the parade. I told him only two people fussed. ... I didn't even know who he was, he didn't identify himself. ... I let him know that I know my constitutional rights.” Kulonis, who moved to Montana from California, a state she called “the land of fruits and nuts,” said any racial interpretation of “No Mo Bro” was off base. “Bro” referred to “brother” in the Christian sense, as in a fellow member of the church, Kulonis said, and was not a reference to “brother,” as in slang for a black man. Saying the phrase was simply “Okie talk” for “we've had enough,” Kulonis called the attack on her free speech a typical tactic of liberals. “This issue is not about racism,” Kulonis wrote in an e-mail to the Ravalli Republic. “It is not even about me. It is about control. A useless effort by the left to silence me.” “No one intimidates me,” she continued. “I will not bow to or obey the pc police. I am afraid of no one. I was born for a time as this. Opinions and names do not change the facts or who I am. I say, ‘Watch this Patriot Act!' ” Kulonis said it doesn't bother her that some interpreted her sign as racist. “I can't help what people think and someone being offended is not my responsibility,” she said. “Everything I did, I did with my own kind heart.” Nonetheless, given the possibility that the public might consider the sign offensive and racist, officials with Stevensville's annual celebration said the sign would not have been allowed on a sanctioned parade float had parade judges been aware of it beforehand. “Creamery Picnic would not have intentionally allowed something like that into the parade,” said Patrick Offen, the event's chairman. “We have volunteers that have worked hard all year to make this a great event for the community, and we don't support racism.” There were reports of another offensive sign - one on which the president was depicted with a bull's-eye across his body - that parade officials said they could not corroborate, though Offen was just as clear on how that would have been received. “I can tell you the parade would not have started with that in there,” he said. Kulonis said rumors that she'd held that sign were untrue. While participating in the parade, Dennis McDonald, a Democrat running for Montana's lone seat in Congress, said he saw some run-of-the-mill political signs but thought the signs with Obama as a target and “No Mo Bro” were over the line. He said he didn't recall who was holding the Obama-target sign. “It was a wonderful parade and day and it was just this (Obama-target) sign and (No Mo Bro) float that shocked me,” McDonald said. “Right now people are feeling pretty raw, I don't remember a time when feelings were so raw. I think people are losing their sense of civility. I hope it ends, I really do.” Float judge Josh Biebinger said he wished he had caught the offending material before the parade started. As a judge, Biebinger said he can disallow floats that don't meet the criteria for the parade, such as adhering to rules that entries not contain offensive material. “I would have disqualified those things,” said Biebinger, who serves on the Ravalli County Planning Commission. “I would have told them they have to remove that and I wouldn't have cared about what anybody would have said about it. I have my problems with government, and I'm part of government. I'm Republican, but both sides have to meet somewhere in the middle.” Asked whether he thought “No Mo Bro” was offensive and racist, Biebinger said he did, and wondered how Ravalli County Republican organizations could allow that in their parade group. “My opinion is if that's the stand they're taking on that, then I'm thinking, ‘To hell with the Republican Party,' ” Biebinger said. Ravalli Republic reporter Sepp Jannotta can be reached at 363-3300 or at sjannotta@ravalli republic.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright © 2009 Missoulian
Link to post
Share on other sites
so you want a political party that does or does not believe in first amendment rights?
Are you calling this use of the word 'bro' racist, specifically in this example?
I certainly believe in the First Amendment. What I'm pointing out is that the Republican Party decided that they condoned this woman's beliefs by having her in their part of the parade. Now if she entered on her own without any tacit party support, I don't think this would have been such a big deal. But they chose to allow her to be part of their group and by their apparent silence on the matter, gave her support. And I don't know who it was who was holding up the picture of President Obama with the target on it but I don't think that's appropriate any time. And apparently Jeep there were quite a number of people who took offense at it and this woman's response was basically "So what?". If the Republicans don't choose to rein in these people in their public events then they give the distinct impression that they agree with them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

so "Don't tase me bro" is an contridiction?After all The Man would be the one doing the tasing.The black man is not The Man, not ever.Therefore asking to not be tased by a black man would be an impossible statement.It is not the responisibilty of either political party to control the actions of all it's members at all public functions.This is just a buying in of the failing democrat ploy to label Americans who don't agree with the current administration's healthcare proposal as racist nazi sympathizers so that they can ignore the uprising that is threatening to disrupt their plans for world wide domination.Viva la republican revolution

Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly believe in the First Amendment. What I'm pointing out is that the Republican Party decided that they condoned this woman's beliefs by having her in their part of the parade. Now if she entered on her own without any tacit party support, I don't think this would have been such a big deal. But they chose to allow her to be part of their group and by their apparent silence on the matter, gave her support. And I don't know who it was who was holding up the picture of President Obama with the target on it but I don't think that's appropriate any time. And apparently Jeep there were quite a number of people who took offense at it and this woman's response was basically "So what?". If the Republicans don't choose to rein in these people in their public events then they give the distinct impression that they agree with them.
“I would have disqualified those things,” said Biebinger, who serves on the Ravalli County Planning Commission. “I would have told them they have to remove that and I wouldn't have cared about what anybody would have said about it. I have my problems with government, and I'm part of government. I'm Republican..."
So, apparently at least one Republican present at the event didn't condone her actions. Would it be logical to conclude that all of Montana is racist because of the way she decided to voice her opinion? To somehow claim that the entire Republican Party is defined by the actions of a single radical individual is silly, especially when there is evidence in the very same story that she isn't representing the entire Party. Would you rather support the party explicitly largely defined by Pelosi?You ignore all of the Anti-Bush and Cheney signs and other rude messages targeted at them while in office but decide to "Abandon" the Republican Party because of things like this? I didn't see you running to defend Sarah Palin from the over the line comments about her and her family? Where were you during the 8 years while the Left were taking those shots at the President and Vice-President? Don't tell me you never made any rude comments aimed at President Bush.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so "Don't tase me bro" is an contridiction?After all The Man would be the one doing the tasing.The black man is not The Man, not ever.Therefore asking to not be tased by a black man would be an impossible statement.It is not the responisibilty of either political party to control the actions of all it's members at all public functions.This is just a buying in of the failing democrat ploy to label Americans who don't agree with the current administration's healthcare proposal as racist nazi sympathizers so that they can ignore the uprising that is threatening to disrupt their plans for world wide domination.Viva la republican revolution
If she's on the sidelines holding that sign, that's her right as a citizen no doubt. But she wasn't. She was part of the Republican Party's group in the parade. Do you really think that the Republican Party's reputation was enhanced by her carrying that sign? And don't tell me that they didn't have the right to make a decision about who and what was going to be expressed in that group's entry. So the fact that they did have her as part of their entry says that they condoned her actions and the sign.
So, apparently at least one Republican present at the event didn't condone her actions. Would it be logical to conclude that all of Montana is racist because of the way she decided to voice her opinion? To somehow claim that the entire Republican Party is defined by the actions of a single radical individual is silly, especially when there is evidence in the very same story that she isn't representing the entire Party. Would you rather support the party explicitly largely defined by Pelosi?You ignore all of the Anti-Bush and Cheney signs and other rude messages targeted at them while in office but decide to "Abandon" the Republican Party because of things like this? I didn't see you running to defend Sarah Palin from the over the line comments about her and her family? Where were you during the 8 years while the Left were taking those shots at the President and Vice-President? Don't tell me you never made any rude comments aimed at President Bush.
The Republican that you quoted was a parade official not part of the Republican entry into the parade which she was a part of. That's what I'm trying to get across. As I said above, had she been carrying that sign by the side of the road, that's her right as a citizen. But when she carried as part of the Republican entry into the parade she became more than a private citizen expressing herself. She became a representative of the Republican Party in that parade. P.S. This part of the country were Bushies all the way so there was nobody in any of the previous parades carrying anti Bush signs. Plus the fact that it's written right on the parade application what the standards are for signs in the parade. So even if there were anti-Bush signs they wouldn't have been allowed in the parade either. At least the Republicans had the good sense to get rid of the Obama target sign before the parade officials saw it. As for any anti-Bush stuff, I have the right of free speech also bud so I can say anti Bush things if I want to as a private citizen. But if I were to go out and represent a group, I'd better be damn sure that what I said was representative of that group's philosophy and tenets.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If she's on the sidelines holding that sign, that's her right as a citizen no doubt. But she wasn't. She was part of the Republican Party's group in the parade. Do you really think that the Republican Party's reputation was enhanced by her carrying that sign? And don't tell me that they didn't have the right to make a decision about who and what was going to be expressed in that group's entry. So the fact that they did have her as part of their entry says that they condoned her actions and the sign. The Republican that you quoted was a parade official not part of the Republican entry into the parade which she was a part of. That's what I'm trying to get across. As I said above, had she been carrying that sign by the side of the road, that's her right as a citizen. But when she carried as part of the Republican entry into the parade she became more than a private citizen expressing herself. She became a representative of the Republican Party in that parade. P.S. This part of the country were Bushies all the way so there was nobody in any of the previous parades carrying anti Bush signs. Plus the fact that it's written right on the parade application what the standards are for signs in the parade. So even if there were anti-Bush signs they wouldn't have been allowed in the parade either. At least the Republicans had the good sense to get rid of the Obama target sign before the parade officials saw it. As for any anti-Bush stuff, I have the right of free speech also bud so I can say anti Bush things if I want to as a private citizen. But if I were to go out and represent a group, I'd better be damn sure that what I said was representative of that group's philosophy and tenets.
Again, one stupid sign using the word "Bro" held by a radical in a back-woods parade is hardly condemnation of the entire Party. Especially when someone who identifies himself with the Party was at the same event and stated that he doesn't condone her behavior. You seem to condone and accept the excessive and widespread behavior of the Left as exhibited over the previous 8 years - very often at rallies, parades, and other events representing the Democrat Party. For example the poster of Sarah Palin holding her baby which was photoshopped with the likeness of another politician's face on top of Trig's. You ignore the often vile and hurtful attack messages against conservatives, but think that one woman's usage of the word "Bro" is representative of the Republican Party and reason to "abandon" the party.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If she's on the sidelines holding that sign, that's her right as a citizen no doubt. But she wasn't. She was part of the Republican Party's group in the parade. Do you really think that the Republican Party's reputation was enhanced by her carrying that sign? And don't tell me that they didn't have the right to make a decision about who and what was going to be expressed in that group's entry. So the fact that they did have her as part of their entry says that they condoned her actions and the sign.
Funny, but the past complaints about republicans was that George Bush only let people into his town hall meetings that agreed with him.But now when the party is open to everyone, it's because they secretly hold to these far out opinions.so in other words, you don't like republicans...
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I don't like Republicans. Don't like Democrats either. But we've seen what happens when one party dominates government be it Republican or Democrat and it's not good for the country. This is why it disturbs me to see the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Democrats got rid of the Dixiecrats for this very reason. They were an embarrassment to the party and the Dems were smart enough at that time to see where the strength of the party would be from then on and it wasn't with the bigots and white supremists. The Republicans took them in and it's worked for a while but now it's becoming obvious that they're an embarrassment to the Republicans as well. A friend of mine has said that it won't be too long until the moneyed interests in the Republican Party convince their leaders to jettison the dixiecrats from their party also. How do you have someone out there representing your party that continually embarrasses the hell out of you? Anyway, I don't expect it to change much in Ravalli County since it seems that it's become a haven for them. If you knew that the politics were like here, you'd understand why that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, I don't like Republicans. Don't like Democrats either. But we've seen what happens when one party dominates government be it Republican or Democrat and it's not good for the country. This is why it disturbs me to see the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Democrats got rid of the Dixiecrats for this very reason. They were an embarrassment to the party and the Dems were smart enough at that time to see where the strength of the party would be from then on and it wasn't with the bigots and white supremists. The Republicans took them in and it's worked for a while but now it's becoming obvious that they're an embarrassment to the Republicans as well. A friend of mine has said that it won't be too long until the moneyed interests in the Republican Party convince their leaders to jettison the dixiecrats from their party also. How do you have someone out there representing your party that continually embarrasses the hell out of you? Anyway, I don't expect it to change much in Ravalli County since it seems that it's become a haven for them. If you knew that the politics were like here, you'd understand why that is.
You make him vice president
Link to post
Share on other sites
“Bro” referred to “brother” in the Christian sense, as in a fellow member of the church, Kulonis said, and was not a reference to “brother,” as in slang for a black man.
Thats hilarious.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right, I don't like Republicans. Don't like Democrats either. But we've seen what happens when one party dominates government be it Republican or Democrat and it's not good for the country. This is why it disturbs me to see the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Democrats got rid of the Dixiecrats for this very reason. They were an embarrassment to the party and the Dems were smart enough at that time to see where the strength of the party would be from then on and it wasn't with the bigots and white supremists. The Republicans took them in and it's worked for a while but now it's becoming obvious that they're an embarrassment to the Republicans as well. A friend of mine has said that it won't be too long until the moneyed interests in the Republican Party convince their leaders to jettison the dixiecrats from their party also. How do you have someone out there representing your party that continually embarrasses the hell out of you? Anyway, I don't expect it to change much in Ravalli County since it seems that it's become a haven for them. If you knew that the politics were like here, you'd understand why that is.
To characterize the Republican Party as a Party of Racists and to assume that they have welcomed bigots and White Supremicists is silly - especially when you are using Ravalli County as your basis. Then to furthermore invoke "the moneyed interests in the Republican Party" is nothing short of Liberal Demagogue Mantra. I found an interesting article on this subject which I quote below.
Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that. To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down. Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C., where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually "sent troops" to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces." Noticing any trends? But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the '60s, didn't they? Yes, Americans -- particularly black Americans -- really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket -- by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock. Remember George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat. But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action. But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas. Who's the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice. Who's one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place. Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Maryland's black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele and black Republicans being called "Uncle Toms" and compared to "Aunt Jemima." Moreover, let's take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that: "...(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. ...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." It would have been interesting for them to poll black Republicans and Democrats as well, for comparison's sake, but however you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate. Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford -- of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina -- and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn't: "But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority...." Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans. This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good quote. Thoughts / rebuttals Nim?
Not really. What I was trying to point out was the image of the Republican Party that is projected when these nutcases end up representing them. And as part of their parade entry that was exactly what happened. Sadly, winning elections is about image. And the image of the Republican Party right now is that it's in disarray and the only voices being heard with any regularity seem to be those of the more extremist members of the party. No matter how you slice it, Palin is a negative for all but the most staunch Republican supporters. And those supporters are not enough to win elections in this country no matter how much you might wish it so. Just as the supporters of the liberal left agenda do not have enough people to win elections. And I have to laugh at your sneering at my reference to the moneyed interests. For crying out loud, winning elections IS about money. And until real election reform takes place that's the way it will be. And since those who are elected have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Believe me, I want a solid opposition party to the Democrats be it Republicans or some other party. It's needed to provide balance in government. Too much of one party's agenda isn't good for the country no matter which party it is. The Republicans or Libertarians or whoever else is going to be the party to step up would do well to study how President Obama was able to win when all the odds were against him. Or how Clinton won. Or any of the other winners in the past elections. How they won was having a coherent message and sticking to it. The Republicans don't have a coherent message to stick to right now. Somehow they've got to show why their way is going to make things better for the American people in a way that even morons can understand. Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Newt did it, Obama did it, even Bush did it. It can be done by either party or a third party even if they just get it together. I just don't see any signs of that happening right now except against the healthcare plan which is being done more with fear and emotion that actual facts. The facts are there to fight it with, why is it necessary to exaggerate the problems with the legislation all out of proportion? You might get lucky and be able to fool enough people to get it derailed. But if enough people start really looking at what's being said and what's actually in the bill, they're going to realize that they've been sold nickel's worth of truth in a dollar's worth of lies by the Republican voices. Then you won't be credible with the real problems and dangers with this bill. This is why I've shuddered at Palin and Rush being the ones out there talking about it. So now Jeepers have at it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't see any signs of that happening right now except against the healthcare plan which is being done more with fear and emotion that actual facts. The facts are there to fight it with, why is it necessary to exaggerate the problems with the legislation all out of proportion? You might get lucky and be able to fool enough people to get it derailed. But if enough people start really looking at what's being said and what's actually in the bill, they're going to realize that they've been sold nickel's worth of truth in a dollar's worth of lies by the Republican voices. Then you won't be credible with the real problems and dangers with this bill. This is why I've shuddered at Palin and Rush being the ones out there talking about it. So now Jeepers have at it.
Overall I agree with you, I'm not sure why you are getting so much crap over your points. Allowing a flagrantly racist sign on a party-sponsored float is idiocy, just stupidity of the worst kind. And it's made doubly worse because it's a party that has an image issue already with regard to race. Reality is one thing, but image wins elections.Regarding your healthcare point, this had me steaming as I read the news this morning. There is so much flagrantly bad stuff in the bill, yet the Republicans, led by Palin (motto: "She's like a female Dan Quayle"), are insisting on saying the bill has Death Panels.Well, sort of, but not in the sense they are using it. It's bad enough to have mandatory meetings with bureaucrats to discuss estate planning options, and all the veiled references to rationing care for seniors. Calling them Death Panels, as if they will be giving mandatory assisted suicide is just stupid. Why exaggerate this claim when the truth is terrible enough?And since that is so easily debunked, now when Obama can say "they lied about the death panels, and they are lying about whether you can keep your insurance", and he can get away with that. If not for the Death Panel exaggeration, the part about keeping your insurance is easily proven wrong.So find a true, honest, clear message and stick to it. Racist signs and cartoonish exaggerations just make it harder for the sensible people.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think i've agreed with a Henry post more.I'm not sure if it's good politics or not, whether calling stuff death panels actually aids their electoral cause, but it seems to me like another example of the Republican party not being able to find their own right hand and falling back to the '**** it lets just over exaggerate everything and appeal to our base' strategy. I know that there are a ton of non-Republican voters that will/are swayed by this stuff, who believe the pure bile that they spew some times. Surely there is a much bigger % of the population that could be convinced by sensible and realistic criticism of an imperfect bill, criticism that cannot be easily refuted by the opposition pointing out that you're a moron for exaggerating it so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans. This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.Lmfao, this is the stupidest ****ing thing i've ever heard. I didn't read the rest of the article, and after reading this there's no way anything else said is going to have the slightest bit of credibility, not that I imagine the intro would lead me to believe that it had any to start with.The idea that black people are a better fit with the Republican party, that they have been deceived by the democrat party into voting against their interests, is just ****ing hilarious. Seriously, my mind is exploding with how retarded this guy is that I can't even form a a paragraph detailing why he is so retarded.How anyone could read this and think 'Wow, that's a really could article written by a totally unbiased author who definitely does not have an agenda to promote and who would totally call his own party racist if that was the truth. Thanks for writing this Mr.unbiased bard of the truth' when he's so openly biased is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that black people are a better fit with the Republican party, that they have been deceived by the democrat party into voting against their interests, is just ****ing hilarious. Seriously, my mind is exploding with how retarded this guy is that I can't even form a a paragraph detailing why he is so retarded.
The truth is, the Republican party is a better fit for the poor (and minorities tend to have a large overlap with "the poor" in this country). The Democrats have sold the image of being for the poor and downtrodden, but the reality is that big government hurts the poor the most. When your government goes up for sale to the highest bidder, it's not the poor who will come out on top. Look at what Obama is doing for the banks and auto workers, and all the "stimulus" money. Do you think the poor are benefiting from all this corporate welfare? Of course not, that money is all thank you payoffs for the biggest campaign contributors. Big government is bad for the poor. That's the main reason I'm libertarian -- I come from a liberal mindset, I grew up very poor, and have lots of poor relatives. My biggest obstacles in life have always come from government bureaucracy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans. This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.Lmfao, this is the stupidest ****ing thing i've ever heard. I didn't read the rest of the article, and after reading this there's no way anything else said is going to have the slightest bit of credibility, not that I imagine the intro would lead me to believe that it had any to start with.The idea that black people are a better fit with the Republican party, that they have been deceived by the democrat party into voting against their interests, is just ****ing hilarious. Seriously, my mind is exploding with how retarded this guy is that I can't even form a a paragraph detailing why he is so retarded.How anyone could read this and think 'Wow, that's a really could article written by a totally unbiased author who definitely does not have an agenda to promote and who would totally call his own party racist if that was the truth. Thanks for writing this Mr.unbiased bard of the truth' when he's so openly biased is beyond me.
The democratic party has had a 20 year run at running the school systems in almost every urban area in the united states. The result has been catastrophic. This alone should be reason enough to vote out the democrats, especilly at the local level.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall I agree with you, I'm not sure why you are getting so much crap over your points. Allowing a flagrantly racist sign on a party-sponsored float is idiocy, just stupidity of the worst kind. And it's made doubly worse because it's a party that has an image issue already with regard to race. Reality is one thing, but image wins elections.Regarding your healthcare point, this had me steaming as I read the news this morning. There is so much flagrantly bad stuff in the bill, yet the Republicans, led by Palin (motto: "She's like a female Dan Quayle"), are insisting on saying the bill has Death Panels.Well, sort of, but not in the sense they are using it. It's bad enough to have mandatory meetings with bureaucrats to discuss estate planning options, and all the veiled references to rationing care for seniors. Calling them Death Panels, as if they will be giving mandatory assisted suicide is just stupid. Why exaggerate this claim when the truth is terrible enough?And since that is so easily debunked, now when Obama can say "they lied about the death panels, and they are lying about whether you can keep your insurance", and he can get away with that. If not for the Death Panel exaggeration, the part about keeping your insurance is easily proven wrong.So find a true, honest, clear message and stick to it. Racist signs and cartoonish exaggerations just make it harder for the sensible people.
I don't think i've agreed with a Henry post more.I'm not sure if it's good politics or not, whether calling stuff death panels actually aids their electoral cause, but it seems to me like another example of the Republican party not being able to find their own right hand and falling back to the '**** it lets just over exaggerate everything and appeal to our base' strategy. I know that there are a ton of non-Republican voters that will/are swayed by this stuff, who believe the pure bile that they spew some times. Surely there is a much bigger % of the population that could be convinced by sensible and realistic criticism of an imperfect bill, criticism that cannot be easily refuted by the opposition pointing out that you're a moron for exaggerating it so much.
I heard that the senate finance committee took the end of life couseling section out of the health bill. To be fair you have to give Palin some of the credit for this being removed. She is the one who brought this to the attention of the American people, I didn't see any other republicans making a strong stance either way.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_...e_end_of_life_2
Link to post
Share on other sites
The democratic party has had a 20 year run at running the school systems in almost every urban area in the united states.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...