46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

This last post "tends" to confuse me just a little. Originally Posted by catnipdipper

That's because the poster "tends" to consistently put all doubts to rest about the origins of her handle......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Well I thought so just wanted to be sure.

The U.S. is ALL about race. It is the legacy of American policy. There may be many different types of conservatives, but there's only one type of "Conservative" in Mississippi. LMAO! But, those conservatives, outside of the south, who are not racially motivated allow themselves to fall under the broader "umbrella", so to speak, without openly voicing their disapproval of some of the more "conservative" policies. It's human nature to dwell upon and remember the negative aspects of a person/party. And as someone else stated earlier, racism is practiced with a more fluid subtlety, has "gone underground".

But, let's withdraw race from the equation. The isssue is more about "haves" and "have-nots", it just so happens, however, that in the present state of the world, and more specifically, the U.S., those who "have" are white. It's just the way that it is. The development of capitalism and the "middle class" strengthened the positions of those above the middle class. So, be it the (Royalty v Serfs), (Normans v Saxons), (Bluebloods v the Rabble), (British v Scots/Irish), (Old World v New World), (British v American Colonies), (Imperialists v Colonies), (Colonial Powers v Indigenous Inhabitants), (U.S. v Native Americans), (U.S. v African Slaves), (U.S. v Previous Inhabitants i.e. Mexicans), (U.S. v Chinese), (U.S. v Irish/Italian/German/Polish/Jews/ and Mexicans AGAIN), the aim is the same. Those who "have" control the means of production, the scaffolding that holds wealth erect, and the "haves" have been "grand-fathered in" and the aim of conservatism, in any era, is to maintain the financial power and position of the "haves" i.e. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - thus the word "conserve".

The Conservatives in the U.S. seek to maintain(conserve) conditions as they were in the 1950's, the "Victorian Era" of the United States - back when we'd just won a second world war and everybody owed US money. lol (I've read Goldwater's books). And as far as I've read, the 1950's was an era of.... shall we say: restricted opportunities and limited prospects for ANYONE who didn't have the house with the white(pun intended) picket fence. AS such, conservatives were/are anti-ev'ry-damned-thing that didn't fit into their nostalgic remebrance of a period in American History when America was the "Stand-Alone" world power, when everyone(non-whites, women, etc) was locked-in to their respective "places", and prosperity(for the "haves") was abound.

The problem now is that the originators or Conservatism are dying out or have all died. So what once was a solidified, albeit fundamentally bigoted and unapologetically racist core(they sought to conserve America's hold on the world, the glory days so to speak) has morphed into a hybrid, similar to the child of say.... a self made man, a child who wasn't there for the moral and ethical compromises made, a child who has no real understanding of the mental/physical/spiritual sacrifices made to become a self-made man, a child who's been sheltered from the thefts, murders, intimidations, extortions, etc, and doesn't understand that he can't do things the same way that daddy did them, and daddy's only wish is to see the child "go legit", and the nostalgic child, from the outside looking in, holding on to his own limited interpretation of the past, refuses and instead hold on to the symbols of a dying era.

Apparently you've forgotten which party was running the south and making those policies including the secession; democrats

Apparently you've forgotten which party was running the south and making those policies including the secession; democrats Originally Posted by john_galt

And it was LBJ who said the Democrats would never carry the south again when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Political parties have changed so much in the last 50+ years that to reference either one's history to prove a point about contemporary politics is disingenuous.

As for the general topic of racism and prejudice, there isn't a person on this board, or anywhere for that matter, that doesn't harbor those feelings to a certain degree. As human beings we naturally gravitate towards those who are most like ourselves, who share similar upbringing, experiences, etc.

The question then becomes: have you recognized those feelings within yourself and worked to get past them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy Originally Posted by SillyGirl

The fallacy lies in the assumption that when properly administered, welfare won't elevate the poor to a higher standard of living, but will, instead, "enslave" the recipients. When properly administered, welfare is "spectacularly successful" in the words of the almighty National Review (the conservative's bible).

"The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy. The results were successful–spectacularly so. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was followed by reductions in both the number of families on welfare and the rate of poverty. Single women entered the workforce in substantial numbers and the household incomes of former welfare recipients went up."

Some people judge by labels rather than content, and would rather blindly follow a "tough love" approach, which is a convenient excuse for not wanting their precious money to be spent to help others, or stems from a "no one ever helped me" bitterness.

The U.S. is ALL about race. It is the legacy of American policy. There may be many different types of conservatives, but there's only one type of "Conservative" in Mississippi. LMAO! But, those conservatives, outside of the south, who are not racially motivated allow themselves to fall under the broader "umbrella", so to speak, without openly voicing their disapproval of some of the more "conservative" policies. It's human nature to dwell upon and remember the negative aspects of a person/party. And as someone else stated earlier, racism is practiced with a more fluid subtlety, has "gone underground".

But, let's withdraw race from the equation. The isssue is more about "haves" and "have-nots", it just so happens, however, that in the present state of the world, and more specifically, the U.S., those who "have" are white. It's just the way that it is. The development of capitalism and the "middle class" strengthened the positions of those above the middle class. So, be it the (Royalty v Serfs), (Normans v Saxons), (Bluebloods v the Rabble), (British v Scots/Irish), (Old World v New World), (British v American Colonies), (Imperialists v Colonies), (Colonial Powers v Indigenous Inhabitants), (U.S. v Native Americans), (U.S. v African Slaves), (U.S. v Previous Inhabitants i.e. Mexicans), (U.S. v Chinese), (U.S. v Irish/Italian/German/Polish/Jews/ and Mexicans AGAIN), the aim is the same. Those who "have" control the means of production, the scaffolding that holds wealth erect, and the "haves" have been "grand-fathered in" and the aim of conservatism, in any era, is to maintain the financial power and position of the "haves" i.e. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - thus the word "conserve".

The Conservatives in the U.S. seek to maintain(conserve) conditions as they were in the 1950's, the "Victorian Era" of the United States - back when we'd just won a second world war and everybody owed US money. lol (I've read Goldwater's books). And as far as I've read, the 1950's was an era of.... shall we say: restricted opportunities and limited prospects for ANYONE who didn't have the house with the white(pun intended) picket fence. AS such, conservatives were/are anti-ev'ry-damned-thing that didn't fit into their nostalgic remebrance of a period in American History when America was the "Stand-Alone" world power, when everyone(non-whites, women, etc) was locked-in to their respective "places", and prosperity(for the "haves") was abound.

The problem now is that the originators or Conservatism are dying out or have all died. So what once was a solidified, albeit fundamentally bigoted and unapologetically racist core(they sought to conserve America's hold on the world, the glory days so to speak) has morphed into a hybrid, similar to the child of say.... a self made man, a child who wasn't there for the moral and ethical compromises made, a child who has no real understanding of the mental/physical/spiritual sacrifices made to become a self-made man, a child who's been sheltered from the thefts, murders, intimidations, extortions, etc, and doesn't understand that he can't do things the same way that daddy did them, and daddy's only wish is to see the child "go legit", and the nostalgic child, from the outside looking in, holding on to his own limited interpretation of the past, refuses and instead hold on to the symbols of a dying era. Originally Posted by thorough9

9 I agree with your position.

The fallacy lies in the assumption that when properly administered, welfare won't elevate the poor to a higher standard of living, but will, instead, "enslave" the recipients. When properly administered, welfare is "spectacularly successful" in the words of the almighty National Review (the conservative's bible).

"The Clinton-Gingrich reforms replaced that bounty-hunter system with a flat rate for each state, based on population and other factors. That gave state-level welfare authorities a better set of incentives, encouraging them to use their resources in the most effective manner and to reserve them for the truly needy. The results were successful–spectacularly so. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was followed by reductions in both the number of families on welfare and the rate of poverty. Single women entered the workforce in substantial numbers and the household incomes of former welfare recipients went up."

Some people judge by labels rather than content, and would rather blindly follow a "tough love" approach, which is a convenient excuse for not wanting their precious money to be spent to help others, or stems from a "no one ever helped me" bitterness. Originally Posted by Muffrider

I agree completely with this statement.

Apparently you've forgotten which party was running the south and making those policies including the secession; democrats Originally Posted by john_galt

Galt people like you are part of the problem in this country. The Republicans do not have ownship of conservatisim. There are many conservative democrats, 9's statement was about that of conservatism, and you immediately make it a GOP vs DNC issue.

Apparently you've forgotten which party was running the south and making those policies including the secession; democrats Originally Posted by john_galt

Partially true, but i was incorrect in assuming that everyone knew that the Democrats of the Secession Era are not the Democrats of today. A more accurate description would be that
(Hamilton Era Federalists + Lincoln Era Republicans + butt-fucking = Democrats today). LOL.

The Democrats, of then, were the party or the common man in the era when working class, common men had limited rights - there was a period when the conservatives of their day(Whig Party) reserved voting rights solely for rich, land-owning white males, meaning even the poor and middle class white men couldn't vote and were misrepresented. The Democrats remained true to their common man calling, until the definition of "common man" began to expand to include the non-white citizens(blacks, hispanics, asians). The Democratic party split along the lines of racial equality, which was the fault of the former Secessionists who became known as Dixiecrats.

Oh, I wish i wa-as in the land of cotton!
Cotton pickin' days are not forgott'n!
Look Away, Look Away, Look Away t' Dixie Land.

The Dixiecrats, whose motivation was maintaining power in the South, which entailed keeping the larger population of Blacks subservient and disenfranchised, "seceeded" from the Democratic Party(They were MAD as Hell at LBJ. lol.) and joined the Republican party and added their brand of die-hard, racial motivations to what had, by that time, was more akin to the Whig Party than to the Republicans of Lincoln's Era, who were actually quite liberal. This "new" Republican, the same elitist "Whig" of old, readily plays along racial lines, homophobia, guns, and their twisted brand of "Me first! and Me Last, Too" religion (I mean, Really? WWJD?), and formed an alliance between the "have-nots" and the "haves" that is not at all in the best interests of the "have-nots"

So party history is indeed, quite relevant. There is, has been, and will be, at least until the next Secession, lol, a heavily racist element firmly entrenched within the Republican Conservatives, and the non-racist element allow themselves to be sheltered underneath the same umbrella

BUT, Democrats are hard to love.....I wouldn't necessarily call what Democrats practice racism -their bias is more like elitism. The elitists, the descendents of the colonial blue-bloods, look down on all of us poor bastards, not just the ones of color. lol. I have more conservative values than most; I'd be a Conservative Republican myself, except I don't make enough money. lol.

You guys must be in good shape, you keep jumping to conclusions.
1. I never said the democrats of today are the same as yesteryear. This comment was in response to a statement about things happening in the 1950s. So this comment is about that era, before that era, and in the era up into the 1970s.
2. I never said that conservatives are all republicans. In fact, I am very aware that republicans and conservatives are two different animals. Attend a Tea Party and you will meet some conservative democrats but if you write that a couple of dingbats on this site will say you are lying.
3. As for the claim that the GOP has an inherent streak of racism...prove it! Here is my proof to the contrary; "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"-Joe Biden (d). I guess the rest of the black people are not. At least to Joe Biden. 2002 black democrat Carl McCall won the nomination of the democratic party to run for governor of New York state. He aced out dem favorite Andrew Cuomo. The democratic party was campaigning for Cuoma and promised McCall about 3 million in campaign funds. McCall was angry that he only received about 300 thousand because he beat the great white hope and the dems were punishing him. Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew from a case against the New Black Panther party after the case was won. A whistle blower, supported by others, was told that prosecution will not take place against black defendants by the Justice department. A large number of the GOP candidates in the last election were black and conservative. Almost forgot how black Lt Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was called a uncle Tom, an oreo, and a Nazi by the camp of Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

You guys must be in good shape, you keep jumping to conclusions.
1. I never said the democrats of today are the same as yesteryear. This comment was in response to a statement about things happening in the 1950s. So this comment is about that era, before that era, and in the era up into the 1970s.
2. I never said that conservatives are all republicans. In fact, I am very aware that republicans and conservatives are two different animals. Attend a Tea Party and you will meet some conservative democrats but if you write that a couple of dingbats on this site will say you are lying.
3. As for the claim that the GOP has an inherent streak of racism...prove it! Here is my proof to the contrary; "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"-Joe Biden (d). I guess the rest of the black people are not. At least to Joe Biden. 2002 black democrat Carl McCall won the nomination of the democratic party to run for governor of New York state. He aced out dem favorite Andrew Cuomo. The democratic party was campaigning for Cuoma and promised McCall about 3 million in campaign funds. McCall was angry that he only received about 300 thousand because he beat the great white hope and the dems were punishing him. Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew from a case against the New Black Panther party after the case was won. A whistle blower, supported by others, was told that prosecution will not take place against black defendants by the Justice department. A large number of the GOP candidates in the last election were black and conservative. Almost forgot how black Lt Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was called a uncle Tom, an oreo, and a Nazi by the camp of Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Originally Posted by john_galt

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ............ Man what is that smell, is smells like the same old shit, all damn now I know Galts speaking.

3. As for the claim that the GOP has an inherent streak of racism...prove it! Here is my proof to the contrary; "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,"-Joe Biden (d). I guess the rest of the black people are not. At least to Joe Biden. 2002 black democrat Carl McCall won the nomination of the democratic party to run for governor of New York state. He aced out dem favorite Andrew Cuomo. The democratic party was campaigning for Cuoma and promised McCall about 3 million in campaign funds. McCall was angry that he only received about 300 thousand because he beat the great white hope and the dems were punishing him. Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew from a case against the New Black Panther party after the case was won. A whistle blower, supported by others, was told that prosecution will not take place against black defendants by the Justice department. A large number of the GOP candidates in the last election were black and conservative. Almost forgot how black Lt Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was called a uncle Tom, an oreo, and a Nazi by the camp of Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Originally Posted by john_galt

That's hardly proof of anything except that people with political ambitions will do almost anything to see their ambitions through. If you'd like to prove anything about Republicans, instead of listing "flaws" among the Democrats, list Republican policies, the true measure, that actually benefit minorities - no - not even minorities - how about Republican policies that benefit the poor. And please don't say anything about tax cuts because tax cuts for the poor are simply "included" in legislation intended to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. (Trickle Down Economics) Michael Steele is a "Party Man" and will simply parrot whatever "Party Line" that is fed to him, or lose his position within the "Party". lol. He is/was used in Maryland and by the Grand Ole' Party to put a blackface on Republican policies and more specifically to counter the Democrats new blackface, Barack Obama. Don't frame your argument around "What's wrong with Democrats". Frame your argument around "What's right with Republicans".

My late wife was Colombian and from Barranquilla, where the women are darker than, say in Bogata or Medellin (pronounced Med e jeen). My "conservative friends" didn't take too well to her, thinking her as "half caste" until I let them know she was Colombian, college degreed and spoke perfect English. Then, things were different. Yes, racism was/is alive and well in America. My brother married a young sweetheart from Brazil and like Maria, she was dark skinned, darker actually. Things were okay after he told them that she was Brazilian, degreed (college degreed) and spoke four languages fluently. My best friend during Vietnam married his Thai sweetheart soon after he ETS'd. Same ole, same ole: racism is still alive and well in the United States. I left the Democratic Party not for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (or was it '64?), but because of Johnson and his war he left us to fight. I despise him more so than Nixon because his lies got us into the actual fighting over there. If a man and woman of different colors are in love enough to marry, then more power to them. I've known twelve mixed married couples (AA/Cau) and only one remains today after 30 years. They had it rough in the beginning but they made it work. Marriage isn't an easy institution, but it takes work and commitment to succeed. The people of Mississippi were in the limelight along with Alabama during the civil rights era and change never comes easy, whether down there or anywhere for that matter. I feel pity on them, but feelings and opinions run strong, especially where race is concerned.