You know, the OP could have the decency to come back and actually debate this topic. Support his scurrilous accusations. But why do I think that that was never his intentions?
We’re not bigoted against them. We think they’re wrong. And what the hell does catholicism have to do with it?
Conservatives don’t care about blacks. Leftists believe they will do just fine once they’re allowed to compete. When the playing fields are leveled, affirmative action will no longer be necessary.
Incidentally, W. referred to “the soft [not subtle] bigotry of lowered expectations”, and hearing those words come from that mouth almost made me eat my hat.
Out of curiosity, why didn’t you just hit the little ‘Report Bad Post’ button, choosing instead to grace this thread with your steaming pile of wisdom? And gosh, since you fabricated a quote and attributed it to another poster, someone ought to flag down a passing mod!
There is enough bigotry in the US to go around to both parties. To say that affirmative action is based on bigotry is either a statement based on incomplete knowledge or there is an agenda here. But I did notice that the OP did not pick up on which party routinely sends its candidates to speak at Bob Jones University. Probably just an oversight.
The left wing media in the U.S. is pretty funny, Jon Stewart, Moore, whereas the right wing of Hannity, Coulter, Limburger only excrete hatred and bigotry. In fact, hatred and bigotry would seem to be their entire world-view, along with singing the virtues of the philosophy of greed, of course. Suggesting rich people work harder if you give them more money but poor people work harder if you give them less, stuff like that. You gotta laugh.
Actually, I guess the right wing politicians make me laugh in their own way even more than the left, so that isn’t a good determiner. I’m always excited to look and see what new and preposterous cruelty they’ve come up with, whereas the nanny state of the left is just plain dull.
Couldn’t we combine the best of both?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan B:
Dems are bigoted against southerners. . . . Likewise Dems are bigoted against Catholics, conservatives, religious people and pro-lifers.
Ahhh, what??? So bigotry against Catholics, conservatives, religious people and pro-lifers is good?
Maybe you’re joking. Maybe you’re not, in which case, you’re, well, a bigot, plain and simple.
Huh? 
rjung made a post which he probably considers either a paraphrase or a parody of the opening post, and Brutus noted that it also could be construed as a fabrication attributed to Plan B (which is against the rules). At least, that’s my interpretation.
Well, regarding Catholics, this is a strange claim considering that Catholics have voted for Democratic Presidential candidates in the 1990s to a much greater degree than Protestants:
And, yeah, those Dems are really bigotted against religious people…After all, I’ve never heard a Democratic President say something like “God bless America” at the end of a speech and the overwhelming majority of Democrats in public office are avowed atheists. :rolleyes:
Finally, in regards to Democrats being bigotted against conservatives and pro-lifers, does that mean Republicans are bigotted against liberals and pro-choicers. Or, perhaps, they just disagree with their point-of-view?
They tolerated it just fine until Lott became so large a liability that they decided it would be better to have a friendlier face pushing Bush’s reactionary policies through the Senate. And, Lott was not castigated for his racist history or (past) utterings…And, nor was Thurmond for that matter. Rather he was castigated for making a remark that was literally impossible to interpret any other way than that the country would be better today if 50 years ago we had continued down the path of segregationist policies.
Well, I probably wouldn’t have if you hadn’t mentioned it. But since you did…
When I wrote the OP I hadn’t really thought about whether or not I would debate anything further down the thread. I certainly intended to come back and see what responses I got, if any, and then go from there. An a priori commitment to debate doesn’t seem like something I’d ever like to do. Heck, there may have been no replies, or maybe I’d be persuaded by some of the posts to change my mind. I honestly don’t know the etiquette about returning to a thread - time limits, etc. If I violated any norms for the group please let me know (I’ll check back within a few days) and I apologize.
As for debating, it doesn’t feel right to me now for a few reasons. Most important is that the ratio of negative sentiment to facts I’d like to debate is much too high for me. I don’t mean this in a critical way. If you guys and gals can handle or even enjoy the tough comments more than I can, that’s great. Nothing wrong with that. If it were up to me there would be a lower threshhold for what gets sent to the pit, but it’s not up to me. You all have been here a lot longer than me and you have a good thing going. Again, if there is an obligation to debate facts presented following an OP, I apologize for failing to live by that norm.
As for what was my intent, I actually was not looking for a debate for myself so much as I was looking for some alternative and unique anecdotal evidence. For instance, I would have liked it if someone had responded to my folk singer story with an equal and opposite story. I would have learned something new, which is the main reason I joined this board.
It was definitely NOT my intent to provoke so much anger and bad feeling in other people. I was obviously insensitive to the effect of my words on other people. My bad. This is not at all how I live my life. FWIW I think my gmail OP in IMHO is more in keeping with who I am.
And finally, it’s nice to know that so many agree that bigotry is a bad thing.
"… And in a startling turn of events, the Democrats manage to sink a three-point bigotry shot, with a nice slam at hillbillies and moonshiners, while the Republicans struggle to maintain their bigotry index. Scuttlebutt has it that they plan on a radical four-pronged attack on not just gays, but girl scouts, the Japanese, and the overweight in one fell swoop! Lastly - but sort of not least - Ralph Nader just put out a press release in which he, too, claims that the Green Party can be just as bigoted as any of the two major parties, and as usual, nobody listened.
Developing…"
You might really get your eyes opened if you came to work with me for a day. (At least, if you modified your look a little).
On re-reading the OP, I have another question for Plan B:
You look like you’re one of them? What does a leftist look like?
The main reason that I have been a Democrat for the last forty years is that this has been the party that has most supported social, political and economic change toward equality regardless of race or gender. We still have a way to go, but as long as Republicans remain so conservative, change is slow in coming. Democratic liberals are by nature more progressive.
Which of the two main parties was first to have a woman on the ticket?
Which President was able to get massive Civil Rights legislation through Congress?
Psssst! Don’t tell anyone, but during the 1960’s some hippies escaped from California and the movement spread even into the backwaters of the South. If we make cracks about hippies, sometimes we are talking about ourselves in the good old days.
I am more likely to be bigoted about some New England Conservative Republicans who have settled in wealthy sub-divisions outside some of our Southern cities and who seem to feel perfectly comfortable sneering at our large Black and Hispanic population from their isolated enclaves. (Maybe they assume that because we are white and Southern we will share their bigotry.)
I find it interesting that when Bill Cosby says some “tough-love” type stuff to fellow Blacks, a lot of conservatives (not only conservatives, but especially conservatives) say, “It’s about time.” But, when Michael Moore makes such a statement regarding Americans, it is considered bigotry (self-bigotry?) as if Americans are some sort of oppressed group that can’t possibly bear any self-criticism about our ignorance about certain things.
Well, one of the few bright spots of the Bush Administration has been his appointments of minorities to various positions. However, he is also following in the footsteps of Clinton who “appointed a higher percentage of minorities and women than his predecessors and in absolute terms, more women and African Americans than Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush combined.” Furthermore, Clinton’s policies actually seemed to advance minorities economically:
Finally, the way that Powell has been marginalized in this Administration hardly makes him a shining example. If Powell really had been “basically are responsible for American security,” it is doubtful we would find ourselves in the quagmire we are today. (Admittedly some of the blame for this might fall on Rice’s shoulders although clearly a lot of it is shared by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the neo-con nutjobs in the Administration.)