Racism? Blacks often vote heavily for Dems

Marlin Conner, Broomfield

Published November 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

November 25, 2008

5:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

The sad thing here is that the democrat party has always been the party of hate... From slavery to the KKK, Planned Parenthood and civil rights legislation, democrats have a pathetic record regarding their treatment of blacks...

"Every man that wanted the privilege of whipping another man to make him work for him for nothing and pay him with lashes on his naked back, was a Democrat. Every man that raised bloodhounds to pursue human beings was a Democrat. Every man that clutched from shrieking, shuddering, crouching mothers, babes from their breasts, and sold them into slavery, was a Democrat." Robert Green Ingersoll

"In the late 19th century, Democrat governors and Democrat-controlled state legislatures in the South couldn't pass Jim Crow laws fast enough. Those Democrats created a nearly century-long, legal racial caste system that relegated blacks to the lowest educational, political, economic and social strata."
The Long, Sad, Violent History of Democrats' Racial Hatred for Blacks. Perry Drake
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/s...

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."
http://www.congresslink.org/print_bas...

Are blacks so poorly educated by the leftist controlled school systems or does Socialism hold that much allure that so many would vote against their self interest?
November 25, 2008

5:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

I love it when disingenuous people like HT try to pin the blame on present Democrats for the atrocities commit during the civil rights era.

Disingenuous because the Democrats of that era were actually "conservatives", "southern conservatives" that left the Democratic party in mass during the Kennedy years and after Kennedy and Johnson brought civil rights to the forefront.

Those good, loving and moral Christian conservatives are now heavily steeped in the Republican party and maintain the south stronghold that the GOP enjoys.

The makeup of parties are ever changing and either HT is to ignorant to realize this or is practicing the type deceit the GOP in this era has come to be known for. I choose the latter.
November 25, 2008

6:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

leftside writes:

"I love it when disingenuous people like HT try to pin the blame on present Democrats for the atrocities commit during the civil rights era."

All of the references mentioned by Hazardous_T were before the Civil Rights era. Maybe crack open a history book sometime fool.

It is funny how an African would want to lead a party that in the past tried very hard to keep other Africans enslaved.

Dem party is the party of the KKK, it is their history.
November 25, 2008

6:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

sschow writes:

They aren't voting for Barack because of his skin color but because he promised the most free stuff for the least amount of work (i.e. none)! Those kinds of goodies appeal to all races!
November 25, 2008

6:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

Hazardous_T writes:
"democrats have a pathetic record regarding their treatment of blacks..."

all that was needed to read there... yeah We hate Black people so much we nominated one who then went on to WIN the election.

I have yet to hear about one McCain/Palin sign spray painted with a swastika... or the rise of recruitment by the KKK from republican ranks. truth is the KKK is a domestic terrorist group, and yet the republicans refuse to charge any of them with that sort of crime. could it be that republicans and the KKK have the same beliefs? I have seen it first hand and I can tell you it is true!

Pathetic propaganda.
November 25, 2008

6:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

I distinctly remember being told by Obama supporters that if you voted for McCain was because you were racist. I don't believe either side is true but what is true that most first time voters voted for what SOUNDED good not what they KNEW to be good. Too bad.
November 25, 2008

6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

dragonfly writes:

When you look at this year's presidential primaries, blacks in overwhelming numbers voted for Obama over Hillary Clinton, both Democrats. It was a vote by blacks because of the skin color of a man, not because he's a Democrat. They looked at the color of his skin, not the character of the man, the reverse of what MLK preached. I can see how the primary vote may be viewed as racist, but not the vote on Nov. 4th.
November 25, 2008

7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

That's nothing compared to the % of Mormons who voted for Romney.
November 25, 2008

7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

dragonfly, denverrose15, Hazardous_T...

use what ever rationale you can to accept the REALITY of Barack Husein Obama as President-elect of the United States of America.

Fact is he could be green and you would rationalize all the frogs voted for him Bolstered by Kermit's biased media reporting...

because they too are green.

When the fact remains 8 million more of us in the real world voted for him because of the content of his character and brain power. far and above the color of his skin.
Dubya and the incompetence of the republican mind set had allot to do with it also...

youbetcha!
November 25, 2008

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

INC: The KKK is a washed up bunch of pathetic losers. When they commit crimes, they are charged and quickly convicted, as the members are too stupid to present any sort of intelligible defense.

Or did you want them prosecuted just for their beliefs?
November 25, 2008

7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Let's see: First we dragged Africans from there homelands and made slaves out of them, a process that went on for over two hundred years. Then we freed them but either denied them the vote or intimidated them with threats of violence and death so they wouldn't exercise that vote. Then for a dozen presidential election cycles after the civil rights movement we paraded before them choices between one old white man after another. Finally, the Democrats, yes folks, not the Republicans, fielded a dynamic young black candidate. African Americans finally had a candidate that not only looked like them but who had similar experiences and challenges to themselves. Here was a person of color who not only had the audacity and perseverance to run for president but also brought intelligence, charisma and hope for their future. I think we needed all of that after 8 years of George Bush! At long last, they could tell their children that they could be anything they wanted to be, including president and not feel as though they were misleading them. In many ways they have finally overcome and have overwhelmingly chosen a president who they feel will finally represent them. And yet, some among you would belittle that and call it racist or imply that they voted for otherwise inadequate reasons. Its time to applaud them and to give them credit for supporting so overwhelmingly and in record numbers someone that they know will have their best interests at heart.

The Republicans had their chance, they could have been first to field an African American candidate. As with so many other missed opportunities, the Republicans lost the African American vote because they simply made no effort to represent them. A vote for McCain would have left them as disenfranchised as they have been so accustomed to being in the last century when the idea of a black running successfully for president was laughable. Thank God, the times have changed, even if the Republican party hasn't.
November 25, 2008

7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

diggtbks,

Your the one that needs to open a history book or at the very least comprehend what you read better.

"Dem party is the party of the KKK, it is their history."

The point I was making, and you know this, was that it was "conservatives' who developed, prolonged and promoted racism against the blacks in the south. They were Democrats at that time but left the Democratic party in favor of the Republican party after the leaders of the Democratic party put a stop to that prejudice in the civil rights movement.
November 25, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

Hazardous_Thought,

Don't forget the churches' complicity in slavery and no voting rights and the lack of civil rights. How does that compare to the behavior of the democrats?

I wonder if Christopher Columbus was a Democrat by H_T's standards?
November 25, 2008

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

So your point is blacks are stupid not racist? got it. Thanks.
November 25, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Denise writes:

I'd like to know why blacks voted in such huge numbers against their own interests. Blacks overwhelmingly support school choice. But Barack Obama doesn't - at least, not for other folks, because his girls will go to a good private Christian school and not to the incapable Washington DC schools where so much money is spent for such poor results.
November 25, 2008

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

jmjohnson writes:

So if white people vote for whites because they are white, that's not racist then, right?

This is not to suggest that ALL black voted for Obama because he is black, but I am sure there are at least some on that side that did use that as a factor.

I do wonder what it feels like to have a vote taken for granted, however. I have never let my vote be taken for granted.

As a gay minority, I am expected to vote Democrat like a good little gay boy should, but I don't buy into the idea that Democrats really have our rights in our best interests when they supported DOMA and DADT.

Then inevitably, some Democrat comes along and says "Oh, they were forced to vote that way by the evil Republicans!" Nope, sorry, I checked the votes and the numbers, and they could easily have defeated both policies.

At least with Republicans, you KNOW they hate gay people and want to keep them second-class citizens. With Democrats, well, actions SHOULD speak louder than words. They can say they support gay rights till they're blue in the face, but they have yet to actually do it.

So again, if blacks are not racist for voting for a black candidate because he is black, then likewise, if a white guy votes for another white guy because he is white, that is also not racist.

Personally, I tell people, look in a mirror, that's who you are going to vote for. People should be free to choose those candidates that most represent them. Hopefully based on ideology, but if they choose to use some superficial factor, well more power to them. They'll just get burned later when the rich elite minority candidate doesn't represent their poor average interests.
November 25, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

blacksho89,
my point is that Conservatism (republicanism) is a belief that the past was just fine and we should all return to those core beliefs.

Just as the kkk would like to throw back all progress and return to past core beliefs.

The kkk believe in trashing the constitution with rights for white people only. as we have seen from this past republican administration the constitution is meaningless to republicans.
on a political compass republicanism and the kkk are next to each other.
one and the same. one is outspoken of their prefrence to white people (kkk) one is overt in their support of white people only(R).

Both are detrimental to America and society.

Denise,
Obamas children attend private school for security reasons. Obama himself has expressed his desire for his kids to receive a public education. only racism and hate prevalent in our society forbid that. So for their safety they attend a private high security school.
November 25, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

sunshinestate writes:

IMPORTANT NOTE TO EDITORS:
Of course blacks were encouraged by the prospect of voting for Obama, the same energy that would keep many whites from voting for a black.Enough of such 'editorial'.
Better yet would be to research the tremendous support for Obama by traditional conservative GOP "Hook & Bullet" interests- conservative hunters and related.
Obama made a masterful gesture to this constituency,there was even a "Sportsmen For Obama" effort.We clung to our Field & Stream magazine McCain/Obama interview issue...Obama 'won' that debate.
The trend began four or more years ago and,had the vote margin been razor thin in 08 as in the past then this dynamic constituency would have by now been well profiled by 'the press'.
The fact that the Bush Admimistration waited until the election to make formal BLM push for expanded development tells us of both the importance of this constituency....and the willingness of the Bush Administration to "use" this constituency.
The GOP could not get away with attacking it's core hunter/conservationist base as "extremeist" forever.
The GOP holds Teddy R as it's ideal....a person long gone and were Teddy alive today he would have been cast as 'anti human' "Extremeist".
And this is why frontier woman Sarah Palin will wither away, we are seeking alternatives to the vexing problem of "pro gun" yet "anti environment" politicians- in her place I predict Florida Republican Governor Charlie Crist will emerge- he has the 'gun vote' and has a masterful grasp of environmental policy,garnered from his experience with Florida (the "Sunshine State"), a land of (to sonme,surprisingly)vast public lands domain and diverse outdoor pursuits.
The shift towards "D" in Colorado is likely due in some part to the "Hook & Bullet" effect and the acknowledgement that although Alaska is seemingly an ideal, we have a tremendous outdoor domain in the "Lower" worth protecting,it is after all, the fabric of America.
November 25, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jmjohnson writes:

"Obamas children attend private school for security reasons. Obama himself has expressed his desire for his kids to receive a public education. only racism and hate prevalent in our society forbid that. So for their safety they attend a private high security school."

That's BS, those kids have secret service protection anyway, and besides, they went to a private school when he was just a Senator too. Point is, rich people can afford to send their kids to the REAL schools, it's just the Democrats who tell us we should be content to send our kids to the crappy local schools.

While Republicans want to destroy public education through vouchers, maybe it needs to be destroyed since that seems to be the only way to get rid of the teacher unions who keep public education enslaved to inept teachers and ineffective administrators.

Personally, if I ever have kids, they will be home schooled and self taught. I will raise my kids to be autodidacts like myself.
November 25, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

"On June 11, 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block its integration. Wallace was a Democrat. Now, I grant you, John F. Kennedy was the Democrat president who federalized the Alabama National Guard and ordered its units to the university to force its doors open to black students. But it's not generally known that the then-Sen. Kennedy – with an eye on the Democrat presidential nomination for 1960 – voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the law that really got the ball rolling on federal civil rights legislation.

And it was Kennedy's brother, Robert, who in 1964 assisted the FBI's efforts to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by approving the wiretapping of the man considered the heart and soul of the civil rights movement... As far as other important civil rights legislation, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have became law if not for Republican senators and congressmen whose overwhelming support offset extreme Democrat opposition. "
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/s...

Just once I would like to see the lefties read the links I provide...
November 25, 2008

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

jmjohnson writes:

Democrats can't accept that their party used to be dominated by Dixiecrats who opposed civil rights to minorities no more than Republicans can accept that their party is currently dominated by former Trotskyists (a type of Communist) and the Dixiecrats that left the Democrat party after the civil rights movement. Yes, the Neo-Cons are descendants of the Troskyists who called for a worldwide revolution to reform the globe in their own image.

Point is, parties change over time. Republicans used to be very pro-minority, of course, it was for political reasons as it allowed them to humiliate the rebels of the south, but nonetheless, they forced the south to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in order to rejoin the Union.
November 25, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

conniesz writes:

Yes H_T - back "in the day" there were still moderate to liberal Republicans, and a lot of conservative Democrats. The parties have realigned since then - where are the liberal Republicans now? Well, there's Olympia Snow - point me to a few others please?

It took Lyndon Johnson to get Civil Rights fully enacted - and all of the intervening years have not completed the transition. Even with Barack Obama as president we still have a long way to go to get past the mistreatment of blacks in this country. There is no magic wand that can undo the hate and prejudice - only time, and not nearly enough of that has passed to erase Jim Crow.

Get over it - the current Republican party drew the southern Democrats in by becoming the party of racism. Republicans could have built on the legacy of Lincoln - instead they abandoned it for the south. They are now reaping what they have sown.

That is real history. Now go read one of Barack's books and learn a bit about this amazing man who will be leading us for at least four years.
November 25, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

Trust no parties, nor their goals. Let the candidates explain their position, then vote for the one you think is best.
November 25, 2008

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

leftside writes:The point I was making, and you know this, was that it was "conservatives' who developed, prolonged and promoted racism against the blacks in the south. They were Democrats at that time but left the Democratic party in favor of the Republican party after the leaders of the Democratic party put a stop to that prejudice in the civil rights movement."

That is a flat out LIE and the numbers prove it...

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

On June 10,1964, after an impassioned plea by Dirksen on behalf of the compromise bill, the Senate voted 71 to 29 to close off the civil rights filibuster. Every member of the Senate was present for the vote, including Senator Engle of California who had suffered a stroke and could not speak but pointed to his eye as a sign of his "aye" vote. The margin was four votes larger than the 67 required. It ended 57 days of debate, the longest debate since the cloture rule had been adopted in 1917. Forty four Democrats and 27 Republicans supported cloture; 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed it.
http://www.congresslink.org/print_bas...
November 25, 2008

9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

The truth is Obama is as much white as he is black. The media and the DNC made him into 100% black for obvious reasons, simply throwing his mom’s race out the window. Dishonesty doesn’t stop there, perhaps because there can be no longer truthful discussion about race without ugly labels thrown around. It’s the messenger, stupid, not the message. If a conservative promotes responsible fatherhood in the inner cities, than it’s must be the message of hate, if Obama talks about it than he’s better than sliced bread. It’s an engraved perception, and not going to change anytime soon. I have no doubt from experience that there are just as many racist Democrats as Republicans, and just as many (%-wise) black racists as whites. The question is, who’s racism is acceptable and who can hide it better and project the more popular public image. Republicans are the clear losers in that department, deserved or not is debatable. All you have to do is stop and think about it shredding all your prejudices, step back and look at the whole picture. Ask the right questions. Like, if liberals are the frontrunners on race and conservatives are the bad guys, why is there no rich white liberal man with a black wife? How many black spouses are there in the Kennedy family, or the Kerrys or Gores or any leading Democrats? What, do they have something against black people when it comes to close family?
November 25, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened... I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.
November 25, 2008

9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Andy writes:

"The truth is Obama is as much white as he is black. The media and the DNC made him into 100% black for obvious reasons, simply throwing his mom’s race out the window."

This is a spurious argument. Race in this country has always been judged solely by skin color. Traditionally, if you're not pink, you're colored, an archaic (and offensive) term to be sure.

Also, having mixed race parentage was a further strike against an individual, especially if the mother was white. The "mixing of the races" is something that even today worries a significant but increasingly smaller number of people of all races (and, yes, even among African-Americans). While unsavory, we can't just avert our eyes from the ugly facts of our past.

Obama's victory should be seen in this light. Anything else is revisionism.
November 25, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

A number of posters appear to be suffering from "Revisionist History Syndrome". Sadly, these people want to tarnish the current Democrat party, by outright lies in defense of some shameful actions committed by past Democrats. The sad truth is that Democrats have their skeletons in the closet too, and to deny that, makes honest Democrats look like liars.

Any student of history knows that the Democrat party of the 19th century was dominant in the south and supported slavery. The Republican party was founded because of their opposition of slavery, and the former Whig party's reluctance to stand up to the pro-slavery Democrats of the south. The 1860 Democrat nominee, Stephen Douglas was the compromise choice for nominee between the pro-slavery Democrats of the south, and the northern Democrats that were willing to go along with it to retain Union solidarity.

Also, after the civil war, the south continued to be dominated by Democrats, even as it continues to be violently racist for the next century. For example, Georgia elected Democrats as governor from the civil war until 2003. In Alabama, Democrats dominated the state wide offices, with Democrat governors up to 1987.

Why some people need to lie and claim that Democrats are without sin, and that all evils are committed by Republicans is a mystery to me. It makes independents think that ALL Democrats are dishonest, when some are willing to lie try cover up mistakes in our party's past. Especially, since anyone can pick up a history book and learn that Democrats have skeletons in our closet that no amount of lies can conceal.

The best approach is recognize the mistakes of the past, and commit ourselves to never repeating them. Otherwise, people will just think that we're unable to do anything about our current problems, since we're willing to lie about our past.
November 25, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

"Why some people need to lie and claim that Democrats are without sin, and that all evils are committed by Republicans is a mystery to me."

It's part of our talk radio culture, and it works both ways. As my 1st Sergeant used to say, "Good training". Little did he know the the type and extent of conditioning media marketers would put us through.
November 25, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Good letter from Mr. Conner, bolstered by facts.

Another thing to mention regarding Bill Horton's ridiculous claim, is that voting *for* someone because they look like you (to the extent it exists) is hardly a sign of racism--except for the talk radio parrots who swallow any race-bait tossed their way. A problem indicator, to the extent it exists, would be evidence that someone voted *against* a candidate because of their race.
November 25, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

You guys do not read very well. I said that racism was not the reason Obama was elected but that people voted for what SOUNDED good. Now how can that be a rationalization? You want to pick apart everything and make it seem like an excuse I'm making. I was countering what the guy in the article was saying. Sheesh!!!
November 25, 2008

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

denverrose15 writes:

Southern Democrats are NOT the new Republicans. Famous Southern Dem still alive... Byrd... and in the past George Wallace. These are decidedly racist people. Byrd changed a little but only to support his bid for a permanent position which is what he got. Southern dems tended to be fiscally conservative but trust me they are NOT in sync with repubs but ARE with lefty dems.
November 25, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

As sunshinestate posted, of course blacks were impressed by the fact that one of their own was running for president. Given the horrible treatment of blacks in our history, if I were a black person I would certainly have been biased toward Obama. In fact, as a white person I was thrilled to see a black man running for president who is more qualified than the white guy. What a mark, albeit one that is not yet complete, of progress for our country! But this "either/or" mode of "thought" is ignorant, and perhaps bigoted, nonsense. People are influenced by a variety of factors, gender, race, personality, looks, articulation, background, civility, temper, marital status, family situation, experience, as well as by policies, principles and politics. It is not one or the other. And we don't yet have a set of scales to determine how much weight is given to each by a particular voter. I don't even think the person himself can be sure how much weight he gave to different factors, although he is likely to give you an answer that suits his philosophy.
November 25, 2008

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Essentially what Bill Horton and others who make this claim are doing is asserting the centuries-old white-given (read: God) right to treat black voters as a group--a monolith--not as individuals, and assign to that group (based on race) a flaw, in this case, voting for a man for the "wrong" reasons. The same thing occurs when you hear people remark that "they" (that flawed black monolith) want to "play the victim". Prime evidence that racism is alive and well in America.
November 25, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

See HT, what you have a problem with and refuse to admit is that Democrats in the south at that time, eg George Wallace were conservatives, mainly Christian conservatives. Those conservatives switched to the Republican party that better fit their values and agenda when the Kennedy brothers and Johnson made them curtail their prejudicial behaviors.

And if you want people to read your links, post responsible links instead of articles written by conservative activists. Black or not.
November 25, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

ruckus writes:

So just because of the color of my skin you assume that I have drugs on me? Are you a racist? ... [Racist? Dude, I'm black!]
November 25, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

dragonfly writes:

ruckus,
You (I'm not saying you in particular) can be black and a racist. You don't get a pass just because you have a black skin pigment.
November 25, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

In which the Republican party wooed Southern Democrats to their side--appealing to notions of "states rights" and law and order.

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

In Robert Caro's excellent biography on LBJ ("Master of the Senate") he shows that civil rights (or opposition thereof) was THE issue for the Southern Democrats throughout the 40s and 50s, and elsewhere I heard or read that LBJ knew his party was going to lose voters after the civil rights laws were enacted.
November 25, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

ruckus writes:

dragonfly, its called satire...
November 25, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

ruckus writes:

is it me or are most RMN users so uptight?

ruckus jumps on stage and duh-dah-duh...DAAHHHHH!!!!
November 25, 2008

12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hazardous_T writes:

So, according to leftside, blacks should just tow the democrat party line and if they dare step out of their place and become "conservative activists" they are somehow irresponsible...
Spoken like a true democrat...

And this whole thing about Wallace and friends becoming Republicans is nothing more than political alchemy... No matter how hard you wish you could, you can't make gold from lead...
November 25, 2008

12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

"Blacks often vote heavily for Dems"

So what? It's a free country. Vote for who you want for whatever reason you want.
November 25, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

ruckus writes:

Cowboy63,

that pretty much sums it all up for me...
November 25, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Thinking Americans know that it was Democrats passed the voting rights act and the Civil Rights act over the objection of Southern legislators that were mostly Democrats at the time but switched to the republican party, a party led by racists such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
November 25, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Jimminy: "Well,the Letter Writer put up a rather convoluted quasi-logical sequence whose point was that Blacks are not racist but everyone else was."

How so, Jimminy? Or are you just playing the white-martyr card with fantasies about how "black racism" hurts you? Poor guy. It's tough being white. I cry about it every day.
November 25, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

1. Blacks are only 12% of the American population so I don't think its the blacks who put Obama in office. Obama is just as much a white man as he is a black man. Its the American law one drop on black blood makes you black that makes bi-racial feel they have to choose.

2. I did not vote because Obama was black. I voted for him because Palin is not whom I wanted to see as a president if something happened to Mr. McCain. I think its sad when you put someone whom took 7 years to finish community college up against a Harvard scholar and think its "fair". THATS MY OPINION. and Obama's promises fit MY lifestyle.

3. Anyone who has experienced racism does not put politics into the equation. Most blacks do vote democrat but it was before Obama. Blacks voted for Clinton as well and he isn't black.

4. If blacks didn't vote for a party the wasn't racist in america in some point of history. Then blacks wouldn't vote. Its up to PEOPLE to change not the race.

Every race has some good, bad and ugly. Until people come to that understanding we will always have issues. honestly blacks I knew didnt' want him in office because they know someone is going to try to take him away from his family.

Regardless of his color he is a father and husband (a good one too!) Who still has to have more security than any president in HISTORY because of his color.
November 25, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

denverrose, I'm sorry that someone told you if you voted for McCain you were racist. That was an ignorant comment to whomever made it. Just like its iggnorant to vote for someone just because they are black.

But folks are way to sensitive when it comes to race and it goes to show, we've come along way but we aren't there yet.
November 25, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

Excuse me before you give me the speeches. Its the "unspoken" law that one drop of black blood makes you black.

My opinion is anyone who has an ancestor born here (America) after the 1700's has no pure blood anyways.
November 25, 2008

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

o wise one. It's your comments that fuels race issues today.
November 25, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

leftside, JFK would be considered a Republican type today. Examples of Democrats today: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. All racists!

I'm not surprised at the percentage that vote Democrat. Democrats promise they'll take care of people through welfare programs, and some people just eat that up.
November 25, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

INC, Obama is friends with a domestic terrorist. What do you think about that? Great for the leader of our country, huh? The KKK is no different than the Black Panthers, in how they treat other races. Both are disgusting..... yet, you didn't mention the Black Panthers and Democrats. Why?
November 25, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

greenleaf, they weren't put into slavery by white people. Tribes in Africa would fight, and one tribe would enslave another tribe's members and sell them into slavery. Why is it that fact of history is conveniently ignored? My thought....... blacks don't want to blame other blacks for being enslaved.
November 25, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Cwilly,

True, but only so far as it goes. Were it not for the value that white Europeans and Americans put on slave labor, this mass transport of peoples far from the land of their origin would never have occurred and the numbers wouldn't have been so great. There would simply have been no international demand without white slave traders, soI'm not sure that I understand your point.
November 25, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Are people like Cwilly really that ignorant of history that they are unable to give it a context--or do they misrepresent anything and everything on purpose--starting with a conclusion and backing into a justification? Sometimes I don't know.
November 25, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Here's the point, it doesn't tell the facts to only blame white people for blacks being enslaved. Slavery has been committed by every race, and every race has been enslaved at some point in history. Blacks enslaved blacks. Look at it this way....... if it weren't for black tribes in Africa enslaving other blacks, there may not have been black slave labor in America.
November 25, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

anderson......... sorry you don't get it. Maybe it flies above your head, but too bad. Being uneducated isn't an excuse with this. Also, so sorry to tell you, but I have a pretty good grasp of history.

Try again!
November 25, 2008

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

(drooling uncontrollably): "Hey. HEY! I didn't have anythin' to do with slavery. So what's da problem?" (falling down drunk stupid)
November 25, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Not_Alike94 writes:

cwillyrun, the enslaved tribes as you will didn't have the big ships. the battles stayed on land. Yes, SOME africans were sold by other Africans but the majority who were enslaved in America where enslaved by the ones who owed the boats.

Just like the drugs are brought over by the ones who fly the planes.

I don't think because someone was in the same committee as someone else made them friends. Even if invited over for dinner. I invite co-workers and thats what they are co-workers.

I guess you didn't see the racist things Jesse said about Obama/ I dont' consider him on the black team. Also most blacks do not agree witht eh views of Al or Farrikhan. They are the ones on TV not the ones sitting in your office.
November 25, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

CWilly: "sorry to tell you, but I have a pretty good grasp of history."

I wouldn't have described your previous remark as ignorant if I didn't think otherwise.
November 25, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Oh, let's all get drunk now, and act like it. Slave trade in Africa in the centuries past has what to do with racism in America?

400 years.
November 25, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

HT,

"So, according to leftside, blacks should just tow the democrat party line and if they dare step out of their place and become "conservative activists" they are somehow irresponsible..."

Your words not mine. That's the problem with you HT......your words are always twisting facts.

Cwilly, ,

"JFK would be considered a Republican type today."

Not a chance. Too many affairs...with women, that is.

"Democrats today: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. All racists!"

You and HT should join forces. That's pretty much how he sees things...wrong.
November 25, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

leftside writes:

"The point I was making, and you know this, was that it was "conservatives' who developed, prolonged and promoted racism against the blacks in the south. They were Democrats at that time but left the Democratic party in favor of the Republican party after the leaders of the Democratic party put a stop to that prejudice in the civil rights movement."

Ok try to explain away your parties (Dem) history in promoting slavery and racial inequality. The bottom line is it was the Democratic Party. Conservative or Liberal is not a recognized political party.

Maybe try to explain your ideas better and not think everyone "knows what you mean" when you scrawl random words....
November 25, 2008

4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

But mindset is diggtbks...and the mindset of the then Southern Conservative Democrat is now in the Christian/Social Conservative Republican. All because the Democrats made those Southern Conservative Democrats behave.
November 25, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Since Obama has Irish ancestors on his mothers side, and I do too, I voted for him.

Also, my Irish side has some black, so does my Scots side. I had no choice, he covered all my ancertoral bases.

Now if we can find a sillier conversation, lets do it.
November 25, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Cwilly has this notion that it was okay for white people to make personal property out of black people because "they did it too". My feeling is that Cwilly has been talking to my eleven year old granddaughter because she is also into the line of "reasoning".

It doesn't matter a whit what blacks did to blacks. The question we are dealing with is what whites did to whites. It's isn't a matter of knowing history; it's a matter of having some common sense. And it wouldn't hurt to have an intelligent grasp of fairness. Even a little less defensiveness could help. Lord, you'd think that the reason Cwilly is running backwards so fast is that someone has accused him of having slaves.
November 25, 2008

6:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Jimminy, you offered no evidence of your charge of black racism--then or now--but you have taught me a new word: calumnies.
November 25, 2008

6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Okay notalike, would you rather hear that blacks were captured by other blacks in Africa and they weren't slaves yet because they weren't on a boat? Members of one tribe were slaves to members of another tribe. It's that simple. It's also the story black people don't want to know. By the way, I have black ancestry so it has nothing to do with racism.
November 25, 2008

6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

anderson, is that all you've got? Now I'm thinking you're jay or a jay clone. Can you be somewhat more intelligent with your response?

You're probably one of those that generalize and say our founding fathers were slave owners. In fact, many of them were not. When the representatives of the 13 colonies met to discuss the Declaration of Independence, there were those that believed "All Men Are Created Equal" had complete meaning, and they wanted to ban slavery. But as a compromise (to the southern states), to have all 13 colonies take part in the Revolution, the issue of slavery was put aside. Blacks even fought in the Revolutionary War. But I'm sure you already knew those facts, huh anderson?
November 25, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

leftside, you're wrong. JFK would be a Republican and not a Democrat. He was a devout Catholic, and his faith helped him in his life....... and we know Democrats don't like that. He'd be considered a war mongerer because he stood up to Russia, almost bringing the country to World War III during the Cuban missile crisis. He sent military advisors to Vietnam.... which eventually turned bad. He came from a rich family...... a family deep in money and with several properties (we all know about the whining from the left about McCain and his wife owning properties, yet the Kennedy family was no different). Wow, sounds like the stereotypical view of a Republican today.

You're also wrong about how Jesse and the others aren't Democrat and racist. Jesse Jackson made a run for the Presidency several years ago, as a Democrat. He's unquestionably racist, either against whites or against people like Obama, who Jackson has said isn't black enough. Sharpton considered a run for President as a Democrat, and there's no doubt he's a racist....... I don't even need to expand on that. Farrakahn supported Obama, a Democrat, and he's the most racist of the three.
November 25, 2008

7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Hey grandpaw, if you're a little too sensitive to handle the truth, too bad. I've never said one person owning another as property was right, have I? I didn't think so! So take your Alzheimers somewhere else, old timer.
November 25, 2008

7:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

RB writes:

Some of the posts that I have read are what Christ would do and best represent Christianity! God help us! Unfortunately, racism is alive and well today. Something tells me though that Christ is not racist. Or maybe it's just me?
November 25, 2008

9:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Cwilly,

I don't know where you get your information or ideas from but I do know you support the right party.

Did Jesse Jackson really run for president on the Democratic ticket? lol!!! (sarcasm) Your a real smart guy.
November 25, 2008

10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

WestminsterJ writes:

Diggtbs- It is funny how an African would want to lead a party that in the past tried very hard to keep other Africans enslaved.

Barack Obama is an American, you racist tool.
November 26, 2008

6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

diggtbks writes:

WestminsterJ oh I feel your pain....

lol

Many years ago immigrants were prideful when U.S. citizenship was attained. Their previous ancestry was put aside as they proudly proclaimed, "I'm an American".

I guess its been the past 25-30 years you left wing losers pushed your garbage agenda on the rest of us by defining everyone more specifically as "African-American, Mexican American, Irish-American"..etc These new names have created a divide among the American people more than any other political tool in recent history.

What about the famed "black caucus" in congress?? Isn't that racist? White people can't join it....

Hussein is an African. Why are you so racist?
November 26, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

leftside........ sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't support either political party. I'm independent. I'm more Libertarian, so to speak.

Try reading different perspectives, different sources, it's not too hard to get the same information.

Check this out on Jesse Jackson: cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/.../president.2000/jackson/index.html

Or this on Al Sharpton: www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/sharpton.html

Oh, and if you want to be smart, try using the correct spelling on something as simple as "your" as opposed to "you're." You meant "you're" in the way you've used it.
November 26, 2008

2:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

lastdance writes:

I wasn't aware Jesse Jackson and ol Al'Sharpton were still the "official" black emperor's? I didn’t think either of them had secret “black phones” that allow them to communicate with and then speak for all black people in America, why don’t Jesse and Al both have shows with as large a following and public support as say, Rush Limbaugh? It probably has to do with the fact that the majority of the public at large do not support the same views or share the same ideals – white, black or any other color. You guys are correct; democrats were the more racist party back during a time when America as a whole was a more racist country. Why hold that party accountable today for what took place in the past , that’s like trying to hold white people accountable today for what took place in the past with slavery- it solves nothing

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Racism? Blacks often vote heavily for Dems

Marlin Conner, Broomfield

Published November 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs