Holy fuk. Holy fuk. Oh how low he sunk.

What a fuking whore of a man. A lowdown, dirty fuking prostitute. You should be ashamed of your self, and if your mama is dead she's now spinning in her grave like my rims.

Um, dude. They're right. NOBODY in the south was a republican back in the Jim Crow days and whatnot. Ever heard Condeleeza Rice's story of how her dad became a Republican? The Democrats wouldn't let him register to vote -- but the Republican's did.

Hence the Term 'Dixiecrat.' Republicanism didn't really start in the south until the Democrats decided to take a more liberal stance than the Dixiecrats were interested in, and the Religious-conservatives latched onto the Republican bandwagon.

But yeah, while the Democratic party itself didn't start the KKK, you can be damn sure that the gentlemen who founded it weren't Republicans, they would've never associated themselves with Lincoln's party -- they fought a war because of it, REMEMBER.

I still wonder why Black people consider the Republicans to be the anti-Black party. The GOP has a rep as being rich and white, but the Democrats have hangings, Jim Crow, chain gangs, etc. in their past...

Don't mind me though, I hate all political parties.

I blame the jews.

Quote from Uart:
I still wonder why Black people consider the Republicans to be the anti-Black party. The GOP has a rep as being rich and white, but the Democrats have hangings, Jim Crow, chain gangs, etc. in their past...

Um...because the republicans of today inherit the bloodlines and the attitudes of the Democrats back when they founded KKK? Because of the fuking GOP policy over the last three-four decades? Because 'George Bush doesn't care about black people' (TM)?

I give big brown shit about what the Democrats used to be like in the last century. It's just a label for a bunch of attitudes and virtues. Like the word 'liberal.' Labels may travel freely from one groupo of people to other, and may mean different things in different eras. Labels may be used to libel and skew. You need to peek under the labels, whatever they may be, and determine what they mean, in pragmatic terms, on the political playfield of today.

My disapproval is aimed squarely at Mr. Extremist I-Sold-My-Ass-to-the-GOP-and-Became-a-Mouthpiece-of-Rove politician prick over there.

Very well put, Cracka. My brother in law (proud GOP) always says he hopes his party is the first to have a black candidate for president, like it's a WE GOT HERE FIRST kinda thing. I'm not saying the dems don't do that, but they seem way more sincere in their courting of black and hispanic votes.

I don't think any politician is ever sincere when courting any votes. If they were, we wouldn't have any problems.

The biggest problem with politics is that two parties basically control our lives. If I want to run for president (for real, and actually get votes, and maybe win), I have to have the approval of either the Repub. or Dem. overlords at party-central.

You can't be honest, because you have to fit a party mold. Look what happened to Leiberman... he got his ass dropped because his party turned on him.

... because he sucked.

i always remembered learning that historical democrats were more like modern republicans and vice versa, but my drunken 3am google searches do not corroborate. *shrug*

Well, you're kind of right. Dixiecrats were all kentucky-fried southern and religious-conservative -- Strom Thurmond was originally a Democrat. A lot of Dixiecrats left the party and became republicans and since them the Democratic Party hasn't been quite so conservative.

The democrats were founded as a liberal party -- don't get too excited though, that meant traditional liberalism, which is more like Libertarianism these days (which, at least economically, has been closer to Republican platforms. Closer, but not the same).

So, there you go.

You can take history out of context and make it say any thing you want. And no matter what you say there will always be idiots who believe you.

I think underdogs tend to run together in the aggregate. When you're the downtrodden, you have an immediate and compelling connection to others of your type, and a shared oppressor, or goal, or at the very least, complaint.

Trivial life examples that at least give the appearance of qualifying: the way girls instantly bond in social situations even if they've never met. The way ethnic groups pay lip service to the idea of solidarity, whether or not they also shoot each other in the streets. The way lots of people from all walks of life are eager to hate on cops.

Liberalism also qualifies (in my head) as a kind of self-selected downtroddenness. This is embodied in the 'bleeding heart' stereotype: power to the people, workers unite, starving people in COUNTRY_X that cannot fend for themselves vs. hunger or corporations or Big Evil Government.

Given the above conjecture, you could predict that poor or disempowered blacks would orient towards the Democratic party (let's everyone share, let's work for handouts, oh you poor thing you have a booboo), and that rich or empowered blacks (self-made, passing, octaroons, what have you) would gravitate towards the Republican party (let's preserve the fruits of our labor/pillage, let's run businesses and build things, let's squeeze pennies out of the working class so we can afford more delicious puppy blood).

That prediction would seem to bear out historically. I can't promise the same for the conjecture, but it's something I've been thinking about for a while and I can't say it doesn't seem to fit. I suspect if you leave America, the land where if you're not a white male, you're in some significant minority, and go to, say, Sri Lanka, the labels would change, but the general mechanism would still be at play.

WERDZ!