Post-Election Analysis

[Elfhelm]

Please forgive me insisting on us all using the same definitions of the same words.

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

racist - 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

These words mean specific things. They also have high emotional content. Let's not use them for mere emotional reasons.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Please forgive me insisting on us all using the same definitions of the same words.

bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

racist - 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

These words mean specific things. They also have high emotional content. Let's not use them for mere emotional reasons.

Whatever elfhelm.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Ironically enough, the Republican Party was strongest in the Union states during and after the Civil War, and the Democratic party was strongest in the Confederate states up until 1960. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican president.

That's where the terms "Dixiecrat" and "Solid South" originated. Bibby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and the Civil Rights Act changed all that.

Interesting fact. Strom Thurmond added a rider to the civil rights act so that it also applied to women, thinking hoping that would kill the bill. Don't forget the sexist aspect, too. A black women is just going to have more automatic votes against her, period.

Got to run, but I'll be back in a few hours.

[Elfhelm]

Well, words are important. Here we are at a literary website. We should have a care for the language, don't you all agree?

In what way is saying the former slave states voted for Bush a racist statement? It's just true.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Well, words are important. Here we are at a literary website. We should have a care for the language, don't you all agree?

In what way is saying the former slave states voted for Bush a racist statement? It's just true.

Becuase they weren't all slave states - maybe that might be the reason. Also - the damn civil war was over 140 years ago and people want to still say that this is the reason that the "south" voted for Bush.

Here we have Cirdan talking about the 60's and what happened there. You know I think liberals basically just want to keep the race issue alive - because it gives them something to run on.

[Elfhelm]

I do not see the relation between my question "What is racist about saying former slave states voted for Bush", and your answer that the civil war ended 140 years ago and the liberals are keeping the race issue alive. Are you saying that liberals are racist for keeping the issue alive, because I see no discrimination or prejudice based on race, which is the definition.

How about if maybe it just isn't racist? Maybe people are using that word for sheer emotional content, not because it means anything.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I do not see the relation between my question "What is racist about saying former slave states voted for Bush", and your answer that the civil war ended 140 years ago and the liberals are keeping the race issue alive.

it's funny how you ignored the part that actually addressed what I found racist in the statement. Not all the states who voted for bush were slave states - but I guess those don't count. Only the former "slave" states from 140 years ago matter.

Are you saying that liberals are racist for keeping the issue alive, because I see no discrimination or prejudice based on race, which is the definition.

I don't think liberal are racist for keeping the issue alive - I think they keep the issue alive so the country can't heal and just treat people as humans. Instead it's always black versus white or white versus black with them. I think it's ridiculous. There will always be some people racist - but I find some of your and cirdans statements toward republicans and the south very bigotted.

How about if maybe it just isn't racist? Maybe people are using that word for sheer emotional content, not because it means anything.

Oh - you mean how the liberals throw around the word "segragation" and say that are schools are more segregated now than they have been in the past? Ignoring the fact that people go to school where they live and segregation in the 60's was government imposed? They try to make an issue that isn't there. That's one of the reasons I support vouchers - because then it will give parents a choice on where to send their children - and it will get a more diversified school system. The democrat idea of forced busing didn't work because that didn't give parents a choice - it was government dictating.

I would like to see all this talk of "the slave states" and so forth just stop. They haven't been slave states for 140 years. And I do NOT think that Condoleeza Rice would be a problem in the south.

[Insidious Rex]

So do you think she would have gotten an equal percentage of votes as Bush did if she had been running against Kerry? Her political opinions and Bush's are essentially identical.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So do you think she would have gotten an equal percentage of votes as Bush did if she had been running against Kerry? Her political opinions and Bush's are essentially identical.

It's impossible to know - because she's never actually run for office before. Most people really don't know anything about her. My friend yesterday tried to tell me how she worked for Coca Cola and was involved with some strike massacre in Africa. That was why he was against her being Secretary of State. Nevermind that she never worked for Coke. Then he tried telling me that she worked for Exxon and was involved with a huge scandal there - never mind again that she never worked for Exxon either. She was on the board of directors for Chevron - but most boards of large companies are just made up of people who have a "name" and they do NOT make policy or have very much of a role in the operation of the company.

Most people do NOT know what her positions are issues. So we will see. Her moving into the Secretary of State position and then into VP (if that happens) makes her far more visible to the public.

[Insidious Rex]

i guess what im getting at is do you think her race and sex would play ABSOLUTELY NO PART in how residents of the south would vote? Or no more so then people in say Ohio? Or Arizona?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

i guess what im getting at is do you think her race and sex would play ABSOLUTELY NO PART in how residents of the south would vote? Or no more so then people in say Ohio? Or Arizona?

I think for some people it will - for some people it won't. There is racism every though - including against whites. No one had said race would be an issue against Powell though and Powell was mentioned several times here.

Oh - and no one was talking about race and sex playing NO part - they were making a general biggotted statement about republicans and the south in general.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

it's funny how you ignored the part that actually addressed what I found racist in the statement. Not all the states who voted for bush were slave states - but I guess those don't count. Only the former "slave" states from 140 years ago matter.

You are still saying something is racist and I am still unable to follow your reasoning. I'm not trying to beg the question. I seriously do not see the link you are trying to make.

I can understand saying that, because Illinois and Ohio are shown in red, and they were not slave states, then it invalidates the parallel that has been drawn. And if that's what you're saying, I gotcha.

But how is any of this "racist"?

[Elfhelm]

Well, I think you may be right that some Democrats are bigotted against Republicans. I've heard them use words like "evil" and "slantbrow" and mention pickup trucks and gunracks. That sort of thing isn't allowed here, I've been told. On the other hand, we are elitists, we have our heads in the sand, and we sip lattes, or so I'm told. Never mind that my Republican co-workers sip lattes. I am not sure their heads are above ground either.

But bigotry usually is used to refer to a way of talking about a minority in order to oppress them. The Normans were the first bigots when they suppressed the Saxons. It isn't used to describe overly generalized statements about the majority.

I think biggot and racist must be talking point words of the day from Sean or Bill. Can anyone tell us if Sean and Bill are saying those two words a lot today?

[Starr Polish]

Um...Illinois went blue...I thought.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But how is any of this "racist"?

I was responding to this from Cirdan...

Condi as president? That's one way to swing the old slave states back to the dems. The ghost of Lincoln stalking the solid South once again. lol

It's like saying that the south won't vote on any issues - but will only vote against Condoleeza Rice because she's black. If that was said about the black vote - people would be screaming that it was a racist statement - but since it's directed at "white folk" it's okay.

The other thing I mentioned was was Carole Simpson from ABC said during the media roundtable - I'm sure you didn't see it. But I heard it on C-SPAN.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Um...Illinois went blue...I thought.

ah... I mean Indiana

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But bigotry usually is used to refer to a way of talking about a minority in order to oppress them. The Normans were the first bigots when they suppressed the Saxons. It isn't used to describe overly generalized statements about the majority.

You don't have to oppress anyone to be a bigot.

big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

What's funny is you gave the definition up above and a long speech about using the words in the proper way and then here you post something trying to redefine what the word means. I guess your little speech and "educational" lesson doesn't apply to you though.

I think biggot and racist must be talking point words of the day from Sean or Bill. Can anyone tell us if Sean and Bill are saying those two words a lot today?

You want to act like I always watch Fox go right ahead - I don't have to explain my viewing habits to you. I will tell you I have had CNN on all day - like I usually do. But I'm sure this will go in one ear and out the other.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I was responding to this from Cirdan...



It's like saying that the south won't vote on any issues - but will only vote against Condoleeza Rice because she's black. If that was said about the black vote - people would be screaming that it was a racist statement - but since it's directed at "white folk" it's okay.

The other thing I mentioned was was Carole Simpson from ABC said during the media roundtable - I'm sure you didn't see it. But I heard it on C-SPAN.

I think he's right. Many people in the south would not vote for her because she is black. This isn't a generalization about all white voters. It's simply true that racism is still prevalent in the south.

We do know that most black voters will not vote for any Republican. You'll have to get all the racists out of your party before they will be convinced. Need I name the racists who hold public office who are Republicans?

One liberal said "triumph of the stupid" on TV. Dumb word. It means they were in a stupor. How could they vote if they were in a stupor? I think she's wrong. Are we all elitists because she's a TV liberal? Many of us have deeper apprecition for our neighbors than that.

Republicans are my co-workers. They didn't win anything this year except apparently the Presidency. The ones who work with me from the next state north are hoping they have the governor's office. They aren't evil or stupid. They are misguided.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I think he's right. Many people in the south would not vote for her because she is black. This isn't a generalization about all white voters. It's simply true that racism is still prevalent in the south.

Many people throughout the country won't vote for her because she's black. My question is - why wasn't this brought up with Colin Powell? I fin it sort of interesting - might it be because of the narrow minded view that some people here have because she is so close to Bush? It's also rather funny too - Bush actually promotes minorities who are capable of doing the job - regardless of race - unlike Clinton - and it's by a president who was governor of one of the those "slave" states.

We do know that most black voters will not vote for any Republican. You'll have to get all the racists out of your party before they will be convinced. Need I name the racists who hold public office who are Republicans?

Actually - a lot of blacks vote for liberals because they actually think that the democrats help them. They're the ones misguided and blinded. Soon they will realize that all democrats want to do is keep them poor so they have a steady voting base.

One liberal said "triumph of the stupid" on TV. Dumb word. It means they were in a stupor. How could they vote if they were in a stupor? I think she's wrong. Are we all elitists because she's a TV liberal? Many of us have deeper apprecition for our neighbors than that.

Since when has stupid referred to someone being in stupor? You must be really reaching here.

Republicans are my co-workers. They didn't win anything this year except apparently the Presidency. The ones who work with me from the next state north are hoping they have the governor's office. They aren't evil or stupid. They are misguided.

Actually - democrats have been misguided - you guys actually thought you were going to win the presidency not to mention gain seats in congress.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You don't have to oppress anyone to be a bigot.

What's funny is you gave the definition up above and a long speech about using the words in the proper way and then here you post something trying to redefine what the word means. I guess your little speech and "educational" lesson doesn't apply to you though.

To be a bigot you have to be intolerant. Each of the definitions we can find inlcude that idea. Anyone can think their way is the right way and not be a bigot. It's the intolerance that makes it bigotry. So I said oppress. It seems the same to me. Maybe I should find a definition of intolerant...

How about "refusing to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, rights, or worship"? Sounds like opperssion to me.

Seriously, I think to be a bigot you have to espouse some action to stop another person from being different from you. It's not enough just to disagree.

But I think the right is enjoying changing the definitions of these important words. It isn't racism to oppose Condi's appointment. It isn't racist to ask if the Klansmen in the south have enough power to take votes away from the Republicans if they run a black candidate. These are just questions. I think people fear the answers and that is why they want to characterize the question in order to avoid it.