Do Repubicans Really Hate Black People?

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Politics 101-Part II:

Do Repubicans Really Hate Black People?​

'Some Might Think That They Do'

Black Press USA
by Hazel Trice Edney

Editor's Note: In 2004, Black people voted 89 percent for the Democratic presidential candidate and 10 percent for Bush. Some pundits argue that the Democratic Party is the best hope for African-Americans, given the chilling Right Wing bent of Republicans. But some of the nation's most respected civil rights leaders say the faithfulness of Black voters is not rewarded by Democrats and not desired by Republicans.


WASHINGTON (NNPA) – Only one of seven Republican candidates showed up for the NAACP presidential forum this summer. That one was Congressman Tom Tancredo (Colo.). All eight Democrats attended.

Not one Republican presidential candidate showed up at the National Urban League's summer conference. Four Democrats came.

All four top Republican candidates have declined to participate in the PBS-Tavis Smiley “All-American Presidential Forum” scheduled for Sept. 27 at historically Black Morgan State University. All eight Democrats attended the forum at Howard University.

Hate. It’s an awfully strong word. Thesaurus.com describes it as being “to loathe”, “to despise” or to “look down on contemptuously.”

Yet, when considering Republican presidential candidates’ apparent diversion to facing Black audiences and Black issues, even some of the most faithful Black Republicans say that “hate” - though strong - sometimes doesn’t appear that far off.

“Hate is a strong word. But I can see how some might think that they do,” says former U. S. Rep. J. C. Watts of Oklahoma. “I say this respectfully, but they’re running very White voter demographic campaigns.”

In an interview with the NNPA News Service, Watts, the former lone Black Republican in Congress, now a Republican strategist, did not tow the party line.

“Look who they are surrounding themselves with. Who are they listening to? Where are the African-Americans in their inner-circles?” he asks. “Where have the Republicans been on the Jena Six case?...Where are those same people that were crying fowl in the Duke rape case? Why have they not cried fowl in the Jena Six?”

This is not the first time that Watts has broken ranks with his overwhelmingly White counterparts.

As a member of Congress, he remained a supporter of affirmative action. Even now, he implies Republicans are hypocritical on affirmative action, a bread and butter issue in the Black community.

“How can Republicans say, ‘We’re opposed to affirmative action’, but then we’re tweaking the tax code to help some corporation? How can you say you’re opposed to affirmative action but, you’ve got 27 percent of the United States Army who are Americans of African descent, but you have the defense industry who spend less than one percent of their money with Black firms?...Again, when Black people peel the onion and see all of this, you think, ‘Woe, woe. Something is wrong with this picture.’”

On the other hand, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan signals that all is well between Republicans and African-Americans.

“Republicans campaign with African-Americans the same that they campaign with other Americans. They talk about their values,” Duncan says. He lists “lower taxes, less government, individual responsibility and a strong national defense” as Republican values.

Republican remedies are simply different, Duncan says.

He notes the wealth gap between the typical White family and the typical Black family.

“‘We lower that gap through economic opportunity…Closing the economic gap is a big part of this,” he says. He says loans from the Small Business Administration, a focus on education through No Child Left Behind, and increasing funding to historically Black colleges and universities are tackling these problems.

Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers give no evidence of a closing economic gap between Blacks and Whites. In the eight years of the Bush administration, the jobless rate for African-Americans has remained consistently double that of Whites.

Also, a majority of Republicans consistently receive nearly all Fs on the NAACP Congressional Report Cards on economic and education issues.
Duncan says he has no influence on whether Republican presidential candidates speak to Black audiences. But, he says the reason they haven’t is largely due to conflicts in priorities, scheduling and strategies.

No excuse, says Tavis Smiley, host of the All-American Forums being aired live by PBS at historically Black universities. He said the absence of the top four Republican candidates at the forum next week will reveal how they really feel about Black people.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have all declined to attend.

Smiley says he will highlight their absences by frequently focusing on the empty podiums.

“The message we should take from this is that we are not a priority for them. That’s the only message I know,” Smiley says. “I think it’s a fundamental lack of appreciation for the role that we play in America. I believe that their disrespecting Black and Brown folk by not appearing at these debates…is going to become a watershed moment in this campaign.”

He continues, “We live in the most multi-racial, multi-ethnic America ever. No one should be elected president in 2008 – Black, White or Brown, male or female, Republican or Democrat – if they’re not going to speak to every community of color in America. You shouldn’t even be considered seriously as a candidate if you are leaving Black and Brown folk out of the conversation.”

Shannon Reeves, executive director of the RNC’s African-American Leadership Council, says his job is to make sure that kind of conversation happens between Blacks and Republicans.

“I’m dealing with a five-year strategic plan to build relationships and to begin to identify and to have an advocacy group of leaders within the Republican Party to advocate on behalf of the African-American community,” he says.

Reeves, who was at the NUL convention where there were no Republican candidates, is making rounds among Black organizations, “Not preaching to people, but saying, ‘How can the party be relevant in your life and in the lives of your organizations and your members,’” he says.

He says he is also working with state and local development for the RNC, helping Republican officials to learn “how to have relationships with communities like ones you’ve never lived in so that within the next 10 years the Republican Party landscape will look totally different than the way it looks today.”

Watts is sharply critical of such advisory positions by Black Republicans.

“I really don’t care to do those advisory committees anymore because I think they’re hogwash. I think they’re cosmetology. It took me eight years to realize that,” he says.

In the past, the Republican Party has formed leadership and advisory councils to not only advise Republicans, but recruit them, especially young Blacks.

Ashley Etienne, 29, a media strategist and communications specialist with the Dewey Square Group, a consultant to several Democratic campaigns, says she has compared both parties.

“I was raised to be aware of the policies of both parties,” says Etienne. “I think the Democratic Party is more concerned with the issues that are more important to our community. But, I think that there needs to be more of a dialog between the Black community and the Democratic Party. I mean that’s without a question.”

Even some Blacks who became Republicans are now coming back to the Democrats.

Terone B. Green, 46, who has been an active and outspoken Virginia Republican for about 12 years, says he has finally had enough.

“I don’t see the Republicans doing anything to develop and promote young African-Americans for positions or for appointments,” he says. “It’s not about hate, but it’s clearly racism. People are just comfortable with people who look like them. You only see them reach out when they need other demographics to help them with their win.”

Green says he is leaning toward Sen. Hillary Clinton after quitting the Republican Party two months ago after years of speaking out against perceived biases within the Party.

Love or hate, Republicans must wake up, says Watts.

“As much as we would love to have a color-blind society, we are very naïve to think that we are,” says Watts, an ordained minister.

“And I’ll go another step further. We are very naïve to think that we’re ever going to get there. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. God didn’t mean for us to be a color blind society. God didn’t mean for all of us to be White or to be Black. God is the author of another person’s skin color. So, if diversity of color is okay for God, it ought to be okay for Republicans.”



http://www.blackpressusa.com/News/Article.asp?SID=3&Title=Hot+Stories&NewsID=14188
 
Just like the democrats, their "love" is conditional as well.

Bottom line to this "party" bullshit as far as I can tell, neither party gives much of a fuck about us as a people. That stems from our lack of control of our own environments. Namely our communities, our families, our direction in life.

Moreover, both parties will only consider using us when they believe that by doing so, they will get the job they seek. Control over vast sums of tax dollars. And BOTH parties will only deal with those both have deemed to be OUR leaders. Jessie and Al.

It's sad that in 2007 we still have a system of white men in the big house and a field hand to watch over the slaves.

-VG
 
nobody hates or loves anybody more. each parties values different things and believe in different solutions for the worlds problems. it's just a conquensedence that people from the same economic background have the same thinking in general. one side wants more government programs to support people and the other group wants to reduce it because there are many people who abuse them. but then again you have people who reduce them to go to war and to fight for our so called freedom.
 
I strongly doubt they hate black people. In turn, I don't think Dems love blacks either. Republicans just don't care. There's a difference. They know their base. They know who vote and are keenly aware of the racial profile of their supporters. Blacks hold no real value to them in their minds. Blacks are inconsequential to their political aspirations therefore, you get this type of turnout from them.
 
Re: Do Democrats Really Love Black People?

7818.gif


The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

ts-herbert-190.jpg


by BOB HERBERT

Published: September 25, 2007


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/o...orials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Bob Herbert

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Niģģer, niģģer, niģģer,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘niģģer’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.


——————————————

The "Whites-Only" Sign on The GOP's "Big Tent"


2007-09-22-Jordan.jpg


by VERNON JORDAN

Published: September 21, 2007


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vernon-jordan/the-whitesonly-sign-on_b_65385.html

The candidates for the Republican party's presidential nod are building quite a track record--of snubbing prospective voters. This week the four leading candidates--Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain--added the PBS-sponsored debate at Baltimore's historically-black Morgan State University to their "I'll-pass" list. That list now includes the National Urban League, Univision, the Spanish-language television network, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It's getting to be a long list.

But perhaps it's those of us who are dismayed by these displays of camapign cowardice that just don't get it.

Perhaps the GOP candidates are following the same script the Bush administration has used for governance: be irresponsible.

Or perhaps, they're developing a new paradigm for how a political party contests elections. Perhaps they want to test that you actually improve your chances of winning by snubbing entire groups of voters, and that in a nation whose voting pool is becoming more and more diverse, you make it clear you want just the votes of whites.

Republicans love to talk about Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, presidents whom they hold up as having met the tests of greatness. Is this what Abraham Lincoln would do? Is this what Ronald Reagan would do?

Republicans also used to talk about their welcoming all Americans into the party of the "big tent." But actions speak louder than words. The actions of the Republican candidates make it clear the big tent has a whites-only sign over the entrance.





 
Let's put it this way, "Most Republicans are not bigots, but most bigots are Republican". :yes:
 
Repubs hate people with no money and they think Blacks have no money. Even though a majority of repubs are dirt poor White folks, they are repubs because of the a) ties to Jesus and b) perception that they are the anti-Black party.
 
Repubs hate people with no money and they think Blacks have no money. Even though a majority of repubs are dirt poor White folks, they are repubs because of the a) ties to Jesus and b) perception that they are the anti-Black party.
can we all say "this way to the egris"

"a fools foolishness fools only fools"
 
Let's put it this way, "Most Republicans are not bigots, but most bigots are Republican". :yes:

I think both political parties have their racist wing. Remember conservative democrats were the ones who kept black people in segregation.
 
I think both political parties have their racist wing. Remember conservative democrats were the ones who kept black people in segregation.
Didn't they switch to the Republican Party, i.e., to name a few:
1964 - Strom Thurmond, while U.S. senator from South Carolina

1965 - Arlen Specter, while running for Philadelphia District Attorney

late 1960's - Thad Cochran, before serving as Mississippi executive director of Richard Nixon's 1968 Presidential campaign.

late 1960's - Bob Barr, while in college, later switched to the Libertarian Party

1970 - Jesse Helms, two years before running for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina

1972 - Trent Lott, while running for the House of Representatives from Mississippi. He was administrative assistant to Rules Committee chairman William Colmer, who endorsed Lott as his successor despite Lott's party switch.

1973 - Mills E. Godwin Jr., Democratic governor of Virginia from 1966 to 1970, moved to the Republican Party and was reelected, serving as governor again from 1974 to 1978.

1973 - Samuel I. Hayakawa, three years before running for the U.S. Senate from California

1973 - John Connally, not then in office; six years before he sought the Republican presidential nomination

1975 - Elizabeth Dole, while employed by the Federal Trade Commission

1980s - Pat McCrory, currently the mayor of Charlotte and the 2008 Republican nominee for Governor of North Carolina

1980s - Mike Pence, currently a U.S. Representative from Indiana

1980s - Mel Martinez, currently a U.S. Senator from Florida

1980s - Paul Broun, currently a U.S. Representative from Georgia

1980 - Jim Donelon, to run for Congress in a special election

1980 - Jesse Monroe Knowles, while serving near the end of his term in the Louisiana Senate

1980 - Frank D. White, to run for governor of Arkansas

1980s - J.C. "Sonny" Gilbert, after having left office as a member of both houses of the Louisiana legislature

1981 - Bob Stump, while U.S. Representative from Arizona

1981 - Eugene Atkinson, while U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania

1982 - Condoleezza Rice

1983 - Phil Gramm, while U.S. Representative from Texas (resigned before switching parties and re-won his seat in a special election)

1983 - Bob Martinez, while mayor of Tampa, Florida

1984 - Andy Ireland, while U.S. Representative from Florida

mid 1980s - H. Edward Knox; became an independent in 2005

1985 - Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

1985 - Edward J. King, former governor of Massachusetts

1985 - Dexter Lehtinen, while serving in the Florida House of Representatives

1985 - Kent Hance, former U.S. Representative, after losing the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Texas

1985 - Jock Scott, near the end of his tenure in the Louisiana House of Representatives

1985 - Carole Keeton Strayhorn, now State Comptroller of Texas (she ran for Texas Governor as an independent in 2006)

1986 - William Bennett, while U.S. Secretary of Education

1986 - Richard Baker, before winning a U.S. House seat in Louisiana

1986 - Charles T. Canady, while serving in the Florida House of Representatives

1986 - Frank Rizzo, before running for Mayor of Philadelphia in 1987

1986 - James David Santini, before running for U.S. Senator from Nevada

1987 - Paul Hardy, before running for Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana

1987 - Roy Moore, prior to being appointed to an Alabama circuit judgeship

1988 - Jim McCrery, while running for U.S. Representative from Louisiana. He had been a staff member for Buddy Roemer, but switched parties before the special election after Roemer was elected governor.

1988 - David Duke[/color, prior for running for an unexpired term in the Louisiana state legislature

1989 - Edward Vrdolyak, before running for Mayor of Chicago

1989 - Bill Grant, while U.S. Representative from Florida

1989 - Tommy F. Robinson, while U.S. Representative from Arkansas

1989 - Rick Perry, before running for Agriculture Commissioner of Texas

1989 - W. Fox McKeithen, while Louisiana Secretary of State

early 1990s - Eli Bebout, while serving in the Wyoming House of Representatives

1990s - Herman Badillo, before running for Mayor of New York City

c. 1990 - Tom Vandergriff, while running for county judge of Tarrant County, Texas (had served as mayor of Arlington, a nonpartisan position, and in Congress as a Democrat)

1990 - Vito Fossella, current U.S. Representative from New York

1991 - Lauch Faircloth, to run for the U.S. Senate in 1992

1991 - Bret Schundler, before running for the New Jersey Senate

1991 - Buddy Roemer, governor of Louisiana switched parties shortly before the beginning of his unsuccessful reelection campaign

1992 - Byron Looper, before running for State Representative in Tennessee

1993 - Don W. Williamson, to oppose the Clinton administration

1994 - Walter B. Jones, while running for U.S. Representative from North Carolina

1994 - Ed Whitfield, the day before filing as a candidate for the U. S. House in Kentucky

1994 - Mike Bowers, while Attorney General of Georgia

1994 - Fob James, while running for Governor of Alabama

1994 - Richard Shelby, while U.S. Senator from Alabama

1994 - Woody Jenkins, while Louisiana state House member

1994 - Dan Richey, former Louisiana Democratic state legislator switched from independent to Republican when the Republicans won control of the U.S. Congress

mid 1990s - Ed Austin, while Mayor of Jacksonville

1995 - Jimmy Hayes, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana

1995 - Greg Laughlin, while U.S. Representative from Texas

1995 - Ben Nighthorse Campbell, while U.S. Senator from Colorado

1995 - Billy Tauzin, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana

1995 - Nathan Deal, while U.S. Representative from Georgia [1]

1995 - Mike Parker, while U.S. Representative from Mississippi [2]

1995 - Mike Foster, while running for Governor of Louisiana

1996 - Norm Coleman, while mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota

1997 - Kevin Mannix, after losing Democratic nomination for Oregon Attorney General in 1996

1997 - Michael J. Michot, while serving in the Louisiana House

1998 - George Wallace, Jr., before running for Alabama Public Service Commissioner

1998 - Sonny Perdue, while a Georgia State Senator

1999 - Nancy Larraine Hoffmann, while New York State Senator; defeated in 2006

2000 - Robert J. Barham, while serving in the Louisiana State Senate

2000 - Matthew G. Martinez, while U.S. Representative from California

2001 - Clinton LeSueur, before running for U.S. Representative from Mississippi

2001 - Michael Bloomberg, before running for mayor of New York City

2001 - Hunt Downer, before running for Governor of Louisiana

 
Bottom line, it is our job to read, and understand both parties. Then, vote accordingly on which side that holds some of the same core values we hold.

No matter who supposedly loves us, or hate us, we must read between the lines on the most part.
 
Bottom line, it is our job to read, and understand both parties. Then, vote accordingly on which side that holds some of the same core values we hold.

No matter who supposedly loves us, or hate us, we must read between the lines on the most part.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

All we have to do now is figure out which are the 'core values' . . .

QueEx
 
The GOP party is really all about capitalism and big business, the Democrats are more of a labor related party, I don't think race is a factor in either party.

Its just all about what they support, there are more black folks in labor than big business.
 
http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/07/committing-bqpfrc-theories-to-paper_30.html


In the first post I never got around to interpreting the antics of the prevailing Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser as it relates to his love for the Ted Kennedy's, "Ben Aflack's" and "Michael Moore's" of the world while despising the Corporate Rich White folks.

Let me bottom line it all for you - speaking as a Black person who has more "slave blood" in his ancestry than does Barack Obama. (You do know that "Slave Blood" is a special qualifier to African-Americans. Don't you?)

The point that I never got around to specifying in the first post is that the diagram above represents the propensity of one group of White people to negotiate with Black people while the other one is more steadfast before crafting a deal. In effect both are seeking to maximize their advantage from "the Black". They simply have different uses for our people toward their over all goals.

Sadly the key currency for the Black establishment today is our INFERIORIZED STATE AS A PEOPLE due to the assault from "Slavery and Jim Crow". This goes to the highest bidder.

The White Liberal is far more inclined to negotiate with the Black Establishment. They know that if they pretend that they are locked into the "pain of being Black" that they can purchase the loyalties from Black people. Ted Kennedy in seeking to expand health care coverage for "the poor" is not intrinsically showing his "love for Black people" as much as he is showing that he cares for the poor. As much as we often hear the fact that "more Black people are not in poverty than in poverty" - the general policy sentiments for the Black community focuses on "the least among us", not the business class or the wealty. Thus despite being a part of the "Rich White People That Control America", just as Jeremiah Wright (or BET Uncut) had mentioned, these favorable Whites are not the "bad White people" who stand against the popular methodology that the prevailing machine believes is the HOV lane to the "Promised Land" for our people.

It is clear that the distinction between these two groups of "Rich White Folks" is not their money or power. It is only their will to accept the INFERIORITY (or damaged state) of BLACK PEOPLE AND THUS SUPPORT THE POLICIES that inculcate this assumption upon our people for our benefit via some program.

I told everyone before. It is not that Black people have an aversion of being "inferiorized". People who think with such a strategy only seek to MATERIALLY BENEFIT from the hunching of their backs. You had better be sure that they and not an outsider control the labeling of their inferiority though. If an outsider who they have not previously negotiated with makes an uninitiated call of Black inferiority - this outsider will be attacked as "racist". If, however, this inferiority is done in the context of some expressed benefit to Black people (ie: access to freshman seats, procurement contracts, health care services) then indeed the establishment will be willing to play ball with our racial constitution. They will pose for the "poster shoot".

The typical question asked by many Black political operatives is "What has {fill in the blank} done FOR Black people?". This drives home the point that the Black loyalties are for sale in as much as the Black community is a bunch of CONSUMERS, WAITING for a solution to be delivered to us. If this solution is not forthcoming - we will simply put into action the "long suffering" acumen that we have built up over the centuries during a time when this was our only option due to the threatening physical forces that stood against us. This force is NO LONGER BINDING US. Today we are bound by our cultural norms.

In as much as the "Rich White Conservative" is less likely to be of the entertainment class or trial attorney class the dynamics of his interactions with Black people is different. The "corporate/ownership/finance" class is not as inclined to be drawn into the it is your obligation to "help us" because we are fellow citizens ("what is good for us Black folks is good for America") theory as some others. Instead sees that THE IGNORANT PROVE TO BE VERY PROFITABLE. This is why the Title Loan and Payday Loan businesses continues to thrive in our community. (Please don't get offended by the truth. This exploitation is no more sinister than the flurry of campaign signs that I see at present in the poorest of the poor communities in Atlanta for the upcoming mayoral election. Any machine that is able to get the people to "try harder and vote for more" without fearing retribution for failing the people most certainly is not operating with regard to the people's best interests. They are exploiting the people's desperation)

To repeat - it is ironic that one force seeks to exploit the poor and the ignorant for their vote which will keep them in power politically while the other seeks to exploit them for the economic desperation that they have with respect to the time value of money equation. In as much as they constantly violate this equation they will be perpetually vulnerable to such exploits. The value of the "Anti-Capitalist" Progressive in this case is that he will work to regulate the CAPITALISTS from securing an unfair contract with the IGNORANT by focusing on controlling the capitalist more than he will focus on educating the IGNORANT on a defensive strategy in support of his own interests. After all - an educated constituency at the periphery will also begin to question HIM (the embedded progressive with insidious goals.).

In truth I don't have any real problem of this disposition as a "defender of the masses", protecting them from fraud and exploitation. My problem resides with the fact that the "Community Protectors" exploit the ignorance of the masses just as the people they seek to fight against. Both of these groups are most threatened with the notion that this constituency and "profit base" will one day develop a measure of structured thought and analysis at the periphery and thus put them all out of business both economically and politically.

Fear not folks. I just described to you what the great editorial cartoonist Thomas Nast detailed more than 100 years ago in his piece called "The Ignorant Vote".
 
The difference between Dems & Repubs lies within the form of govt they believe is correct. In a Republic, the people are ruled by law. In a democracy, the people are ruled by a majority. That itself, should allow people to understand traditional "Republicans", it aint about the people, it's about the rules. On the flip side, Dems look at rules as a barrier to giving the people what they want (majority rules!) The 2 forms of govt provokes good debate about what is best, we all know whats in the "Pledge of Allegiance"

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Although, in today's world, our politicians done sold us out as they have decided to pledge allegiance to Goldman S*chs! Both sides
 
read Gunners post and a little voice in my head said go to the web site.


Well I just found a new acronym that apparently is making the rounds on Black conservative blogs:

Black
Quasi-socialist
Progressive
Fundamentalist
Racism
Chasers


Would someone who knows about this care to explain?

BigUnc
 
Last edited:
Back
Top