The democrats didn't shun the racists. The racists split off. After decades. And the KKK isn't the only unsavory group to ever attach itself to the Democratic party either.
Didn't shun the racists? Wow. That's just astonishingly ahistorical.
First, the historical coincidence that caused George Wallace and Martin Luther King to be Democrats in the 60's is well known, it had nothing to do with consistent political ideology, the South hated Republicans because Lincoln was a Republican. That's it.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act he said that this would cause Democrats to "lose the South for a generation." It obviously turned out to be longer than that, but Johnson's decision was conscious shunning of the racist elements of the Democratic party.
The entire Civil Rights Movement was a battle against racism in the South, and before the Act was signed, that meant a movement against Democrats.
It's no small coincidence that all the racists joined Republican Party immediately after the Civil Rights Act was signed.
And the only purpose of overemphasizing their existence is partisanship.
No, the purpose is to not allow invidious racism to be smuggled into mainstream culture through "anti-government" euphamisms.
No, TW, it is not. His argument tread on some very sensitive toes, and I understand why it got people upset. But again, you're assigning racial motives to a question that isn't actually about race at all. It's about the power of the federal government. And what you're basically saying is that certain opinions about the proper limitations on federal power are not only wrong, but impermissible to even debate. That's not a position I can accept.
No, TW. It still means
a lot of things. And somewhat ironically, you are yourself deploying accusations of racism quite vaguely.
Maybe I wasn't clear. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about federalism. We can discuss the marijuana issue without reference to racism. The entire economic collapse in this country has been a state vs. fed issue, and no one cried racism when discussing the stimulus.
The difference is that when it's a real issue, we discuss the issue. When vague overtures are made to "states' rights," however, that's a euphamism for, "we need the right to **** somebody over," whether race, gender or sexual orientation.
No, TW. The law makes no reference at all to race. Some people are worried about possible abuse of the law in a racist manner, but that's basically an accusation that Arizona cops are racist. If that's true, then that really is the fundamental problem, and yet pretty much nobody is willing to come out and say that. So I cannot take this argument at all seriously, because its advocates don't take it seriously.
This is factually incorrect. When the bill was first signed, it allowed officers to demand papers if they thought someone was an illegal:
It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
A week later the law was changed (because such a provision is AMAZINGLY unconstitutional) to detain people if they've been arrested for something else, which is already standing law.
No one ever tries to explain what "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the country illegally means. Please explain how you would figure that out.
And it's also a bald-faced lie. That isn't what the law does at all.
That is exactly what the law did. It was changed because that provision would have been struck down immediately.
Watch that video link. It's hilarious. The attendees, while AT an overwhelmingly white event, claim that the tea party can be dismissed because it's overwhelmingly white. The irony is delicious.
They can be dismissed because they have really dumb ideas. If a group of white people are upset about the Tea Party
because they're white, then they're fools and I will not interrupt your mockery.
You have been offered evidence that it is not factually correct. You are now apparently ignoring that evidence.
And I offered contradictory evidence. 1% of the Tea Party is black. In the 2010 election, less than 10% of the votes cast for ALL Republicans were from minorities.
That's pretty damn white.
Um... yes. Yes, they do. And that's got nothing to do with race.
The problems with Van Jones extend beyond that petition. But again, none of this involves his race.
Who participated in voter intimidation efforts. That's what got them national attention, in case you forgot.
I thought I was pretty clear. All of these examples have legitimate problems. The Breitbart-Beck-Bagger coalition, however, did not focus on these legitimate issues, they spun insane conspiracy theories in an attempt to smear the NAACP, the Obama Administration, and just about any group they could.
You brought them up, not me. But they are very relevant because of the DOJ's decision to drop the case when they had basically a guaranteed conviction. That decision matters. People are right to be upset about it. People aren't upset because those nutjobs exist. People are upset because the DOJ is failing in its basic duties.
Fine, but point out it was DROPPED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. It was dropped because no voters said they were intimidated:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020
The problem is not that people were criticizing the NBPP, they're racist nutjobs, the problem is that they were spinning it into insane conspiracies about the Obama Administration and SEIU, I'm sure, of course, this had NOTHING to do with Obama's race, at all, in any way:
tonight Glenn Beck really stepped up the crazy, and attempted to link President Obama and the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) through Harvard professor Charles Ogletree, which, in Beck's creative and frightening mind, was the reason the DOJ did not pursue additional charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation (as opposed to, you know, the fact that no voters have said they were intimidated by the NBPP). In fact, Beck's purported evidence only linked Ogletree to the Black Panther movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which even Beck acknowledged was a separate organization that hates the NBPP.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080001
This is insanely stupid for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the NBPP has nothing at all to do with the actual Black Panthers. They just co-opted the name.
Except there's reason to think it does.
Yes, obviously. I was being sarcastic.
