Conservativism = Racism . . . why?

[maximus]

But, on the other hand, an environment has also been created where some minorities have been schooled to posture themselves as victims to get more power, money, and people who look like them in office. Victimhood = power and money. Cry “racism” and painful truths are shut up and you get free money from the government. Playing the race card is still very effective.

Victimhood does not get you more power and money. It can help out some lawyers and politicians. Granted I work in the high tech sector, where any playing of the race card gets your colleagues eyes rolling and will make you loose face with them; which is a very bad things since you really need to network effectively with them for future jobs.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Victimhood does not get you more power and money. It can help out some lawyers and politicians. Granted I work in the high tech sector, where any playing of the race card gets your colleagues eyes rolling and will make you loose face with them; which is a very bad things since you really need to network effectively with them for future jobs.

I agree with you for the long run in life in general, which is why I resent the efforts of some politicians and ideologues to encourage posturing oneself as a victim. I can’t think of a better way to disempower and emasculate a segment of society.

However it has worked in the short run. If you call someone a racist for saying something, it will usually shut them up.

 

[Chaplain777]

First, Conservatism does not equal racism. But when one is bombarded by the liberal lame stream media the idea starts to take hold. Besides, how else do you get a 30% black population to vote for a party that keeps them in economic slavery?

 

[Brendan]

I would suggest a couple of issues

1. Since conservatives want to preserve wealth and minorities were historically discriminated against which prevented wealth in minority communities the question becomes do conservatives desire to maintain a wealth injustice?

The error in this is the classic liberal though that wealth is a static entity, that it can only be distrubed.

Conservatives hold that wealth can be created, that wealth can increase for all.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

First, Conservatism does not equal racism. But when one is bombarded by the liberal lame stream media the idea starts to take hold. Besides, how else do you get a 30% black population to vote for a party that keeps them in economic slavery?

. . . and usually runs the public schools in major cities and does nothng to improve the education for minorities there either.

 

[Chaplain777]

. . . and usually runs the public schools in major cities and does nothng to improve the education for minorities there either.

Yes!!!

 

[andrewstx]

I just posted a perfect example of conservative racism. (the disinfranchisement of latin voters by the (%95 percent tea party) Texas legislature.

And everyone here ignored me like my post was written in invisible ink. At least in this particular case conservatives are transparently racist.

Im not making this up, it’s all over the AP and UPI.

Since no one commented can I surmise that this case of conservative racism is fine and dandy?

 

[Brendan]

I just posted a perfect example of conservative racism. (the disinfranchisement of latin voters by the (%95 percent tea party) Texas legislature.

And everyone here ignored me like my post was written in invisible ink. At least in this particular case conservatives are transparently racist.

Im not making this up, it’s all over the AP and UPI.

Since no one commented can I surmise that this case of conservative racism is fine and dandy?

Yes, I read how the US Supreme Court just rejected the maps drawn by the courts, and they did so 9-0.

So it seems that the fault lies more with the court system than the legislature, especially when the entire Supreme Court agrees that the Texas court erred and should have deferred more to the legislature.

Sorry if I am unsympathetic, but we dealt with the reverse situation here in MI. Michigan lost population and thus lost 2 congressional seat. A large part of that was the city of Detroit itself, which lost half it’s population since the last Census.

But even though Detroit was responsible for a large part of the popultion loss, it gets to KEEP it’s two Congressional seats as they are 'minority seats", so guess what, my county lost a seat even though it GAINED in population.

 

[andrewstx]

Yes, I read how the US Supreme Court just rejected the maps drawn by the courts, and they did so 9-0.

So it seems that the fault lies more with the court system than the legislature, especially when the entire Supreme Court agrees that the Texas court erred and should have deferred more to the legislature.

Sorry if I am unsympathetic, but we dealt with the reverse situation here in MI. Michigan lost population and thus lost 2 congressional seat. A large part of that was the city of Detroit itself, which lost half it’s population since the last Census.

But even though Detroit was responsible for a large part of the popultion loss, it gets to KEEP it’s two Congressional seats as they are 'minority seats", so guess what, my county lost a seat even though it GAINED in population.

What seems odd to me is that the disinfranchised group latinos are very conservative, pro-life family values etc. So why would the Texas legislature want to disinfrancise them, they are clearly allies. Makes no sense to me at all.

Who is the minority group in Detroit, arab muslims?

 

[KSU]

I just posted a perfect example of conservative racism. (the disinfranchisement of latin voters by the (%95 percent tea party) Texas legislature.

And everyone here ignored me like my post was written in invisible ink. At least in this particular case conservatives are transparently racist.

Im not making this up, it’s all over the AP and UPI.

Since no one commented can I surmise that this case of conservative racism is fine and dandy?

andrewstx, my friend, I don’t think anyone wanted to ignore your post; it seems, rather, that nobody wanted to embarrass you by pointing out that a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court recently rejected your liberal hogwash about “transparently” racist conservatives in Texas disenfranching Latinos

But even after Brendan politely broke the news to you about the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling, which blew your accusations of racism and disenfranchisement out of the water, you didn’t skip a beat, viz:
“What seems odd to me is that the disenfranchised group Latinos are very conservative, pro-life family values etc. So why would the Texas legislature want to disenfranchise them, they are clearly allies. Makes no sense to me at all.”

Of course it doesn’t make sense–it’s not true! Learn to trust reason instead of liberal talking points.

 

[St_Francis]

I just posted a perfect example of conservative racism. (the disinfranchisement of latin voters by the (%95 percent tea party) Texas legislature.

And everyone here ignored me like my post was written in invisible ink. At least in this particular case conservatives are transparently racist.

Im not making this up, it’s all over the AP and UPI.

Since no one commented can I surmise that this case of conservative racism is fine and dandy?

This is one problem that conservatives have, and possibly reason no 5 that liberals accuse conservatives of racism… members of minority group often vote overwhelmingly for the more liberal party. While many Latinos are conservative, younger Latinos and those who have recently gained citizenship tend to vote more liberally.

When each party redraws a voting map, it tries to draw the boundaries to be more favorable to itself. This is natural, but because of the racial disparity in voting patterms, the way each party redraws the lines has a different effect on minority votes.

Take a look at the voting map of Texas, then look at the one of Illinois. Make sure you get the latest one of each. Then talk about gerrymandering with race in mind! The only difference is that because The Illinois map favors minoroties, there is no way to bring a civil rights suit against them. (I would link them, but it’s difficult on my iPod. If you can’mt find them, tho, I will)

 

[Brendan]

What seems odd to me is that the disinfranchised group latinos are very conservative, pro-life family values etc. So why would the Texas legislature want to disinfrancise them, they are clearly allies. Makes no sense to me at all.

Who is the minority group in Detroit, arab muslims?

African Americans.

Based on what I am seeing in Detroit, I cannot fault a Legislature from avoiding ‘minority’ districts. Under Federal Law, they are next to impossible to get rid of, even when the minority population moves out of the District in large numbers.

 

[Dale_M]

andrewstx, my friend, I don’t think anyone wanted to ignore your post; it seems, rather, that nobody wanted to embarrass you by pointing out that a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court recently rejected your liberal hogwash about “transparently” racist conservatives in Texas disenfranching Latinos

But even after Brendan politely broke the news to you about the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling, which blew your accusations of racism and disenfranchisement out of the water, you didn’t skip a beat,

While I agree that Andrew misinterpreted the US Supreme Court ruling, I think you are also doing the same. The court did not rule on whether the redistricting proposed by the legislature was racist. Its ruling was that the district court exceeded its authority and did not sufficiently include the policy goals of the legislature. The Supreme Court ruling struck down the District Court’s redistricting plan.

Brendan has already pointed that out, and as he mentioned there are ample news sources about it. But here is a link to the Supreme Court ruling itself.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-713.pdf

As I understand it, the redistricting process is being kicked back to the district court so it can try again

Because it is unclear whether the District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated,and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Under the oting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court has to approve any redistricting in certain areas, and Texas is one such locale.

 

[KSU]

“While I agree that Andrew misinterpreted the US Supreme Court ruling, I think you are also doing the same. The court did not rule on whether the redistricting proposed by the legislature was racist. Its ruling was that the district court exceeded its authority and did not sufficiently include the policy goals of the legislature. The Supreme Court ruling struck down the District Court’s redistricting plan.”–Dale M

Dale, I didn’t say andrewstx misinterpreted the US Supreme Court ruling; I said he was unaware of it. He was speaking of the District Court voiding the Texas legislature’s maps and substituting its own maps. He believes that was the District Court’s way of saying that the “conservative legislature has gerrymandered the voting districts to make Hispanics powerless”, which is liberal nonsense compounded by his following and even sillier post, viz:
“'I just posted a perfect example of conservative racism. (the disenfranchisement of Latin voters by the (%95 percent tea party) Texas legislature…At least in this particular case conservatives are transparently racist…I’m not making this up…conservative racism is fine and dandy?”

The point of my reply post, Dale, was that the finding of the US Supreme Court as to the improper action of the District Court cut the rug out from under his reliance on THAT court for his accusations of a court finding of racism against conservatives. As a conservative who recently moved out of Texas (for a slightly cooler and wetter clime), I find his comments not only technically wrong but offensive.

I agree with you BTW that the Supreme Court, at least in the case at issue here, did not have to reach the matter of racism. Unfortunately, however, this entire matter, IN THIS DAY AND AGE involves nothing more than racism and a bigoted attitude against some states. Three cheers for Justice Thomas:
[January 20, 2012]
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. The Court proceeds from the premise that court-drawn interim plans are necessary in part because Texas’ newly enacted redistricting plans are unenforceable for lack of preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ante, at 1–3. In my view, Texas’ failure to timely obtain§5 preclearance of its new plans is no obstacle to their implementation, because, as I have previously explained,§5 is unconstitutional. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 212 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).