[smacintush]

One side looks a non-white group, be they hipanic or black or what have you, and has no interest in pandering to them and would rather see them lift themselves up, against all odds real or imagined.

The other side looks a any non-white group and sees victims…people who simply cannot make it on their own and therefore need to be taken care of by the government.

Which side is more racist?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Actually, as a %, more (R) voted for the '64 CRA than (D)

Not to mention that it was (R) that STARTED the Civil Rights Act(s). 1957, 1960, and wrote most of the 1964 act. I find it telling how Kennedy's name is mentioned in connection with CRAs, but notice there's no act of 1961, 1962 or 1963 when he was in office. He opposed or didn't vote for the first two.

All this has been gone over before. Neither party gets credit for the Civil RIghts Movement, or the acts exclusively, but the Democrats HAVE perpetrated a complete history re-write to give themselves the entire credit, when the party's track record is completely abysmal.

[peeb]

Perhaps the side who insists on generalizations like that?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Perhaps the side who insists on generalizations like that?

So, one is a racist for making broad observations about political parties?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

A true conservative is one who wants to conserve essential traditions, conserve essential natural environmental conditions and preserve individual and collective liberty.

A fake conservative is a religious fundamentalist and xenophobe who fears all progress.

A true liberal is one who wants to conserve essential traditions, conserve essential natural environmental conditions and preserve individual and collective liberty.

A fake liberal is fashion victim who believes anything musicians, actors, Hilary Clinton, Michael Moore, Bono, Greenpeace and MTV tells them, and is really just interested in taking lots of drugs and being a "Save the world" hypocrite and liar.

I'd say pretty accurate, although I'd change 'true liberal' to 'classic liberal'.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Not to mention that it was (R) that STARTED the Civil Rights Act(s). 1957, 1960, and wrote most of the 1964 act. I find it telling how Kennedy's name is mentioned in connection with CRAs, but notice there's no act of 1961, 1962 or 1963 when he was in office. He opposed or didn't vote for the first two.

All this has been gone over before. Neither party gets credit for the Civil RIghts Movement, or the acts exclusively, but the Democrats HAVE perpetrated a complete history re-write to give themselves the entire credit, when the party's track record is completely abysmal.

All I said was that, times having changed, Democrats today tend to associate the party with someone along the lines of Kennedy as opposed to racist Southern Democrats and besides which it looks if Obama wins the nomination it will be in no small part thanks to his impressive Southern state victories.

But that's another matter.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by paul w 

All I said was that, times having changed, Democrats today tend to associate the party with someone along the lines of Kennedy as opposed to racist Southern Democrats

Kennedy was just a really, really bad example, especially in terms of Civil Rights. Most of those racist Southern Democrats remained Democrats for life, and even headed the party in Congress, such as Robert Byrd. It's been little more than a bunch of myths that JFK was any big Civil Rights champion, that Republicans don't have a Civil Rights record that's actually better than that of the Democrat Party, and that any other segregationist southern Democrat besides Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party. (And absolutely none of Thurmond's anti-Civil Rights record is as a Republican, it's all as a Democrat).

I always find it interesting that the myths have been floated so much that they are repeated as fact.

[paul w]

You may have a small point about Kennedy, but he certainly rose to the occasion towards the end. There's no myth, as a lot of people who remember him fondly see him for what he was - a flawed and extremely interesting political man of his time. And it's another debate. I certainly never once posited that the Republicans were the new champions of racism, or played no role in the civil rights movement. Or that certain prominant Democrats didn't hang around longer than a lot of people might have liked.

The argument is conservatives, true conservatives and why Barry Goldwater's libertarian definition of the term no longer seems to apply.

[ApeInTheShell]

Actually it was the Democratic-Republican party vs. the Federalist party.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sound like the Klan, which incidentally, was founded my Democrats to counter the Republican carpetbaggers and suppress the rights of the newly freed slaves.

That's a disingenuous argument right off the bat. The Klan may have been started by the Democratic party, but you can't use that as a stick to beat them with any more than you can blame modern-day Norway for the Viking raids. Something that happened in the past, where none of the participants/perpetrators are still living, cannot be pinned on their descendants/successors--otherwise, we're all well and truly boned. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ancestors who haven't committed some kind of atrocity at some point in the past. It's the victors that breed, after all...

That said, it is an interesting historical fact.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

One side looks a non-white group, be they hipanic or black or what have you, and has no interest in pandering to them and would rather see them lift themselves up, against all odds real or imagined.

The other side looks a any non-white group and sees victims…people who simply cannot make it on their own and therefore need to be taken care of by the government.

Which side is more racist?

That's such a biased viewpoint that it essentially means nothing in any real sense. It generalises to the point of utter meaninglessness. True some "liberals" pander to and patronise minorities, but it's not all of them, in the same way that some conservatives are gun-toting, racist lunatics. It's also important to be aware that just because some or a majority of prominent figures/leaders within a group espouse a certain view, it doesn't necessarily follow that every member of that group does so. Blanket statements like that are horrifically inadequate at conveying anything like an accurate picture.