FTR, While I do support the right of marriage across the board, interracial, same-sex, etc... I have traced my family back over 300 years, and I am pure-blood. So your argument about everyone being a mutt, isn't true.
Mississippi Republicans and Miscegenation
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
FTR, While I do support the right of marriage across the board, interracial, same-sex, etc... I have traced my family back over 300 years, and I am pure-blood. So your argument about everyone being a mutt, isn't true.
Don't know, of course, but it would not surprise me to learn that Mississippi is every bit the backwater holdout that it's often characterized as. That state ranks right at the bottom of pretty much every social measure (education, drunk driving, etc.).
Pretty sure I've already covered that here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2733406&postcount=10
A bit late for that - the GOP national leadership was already pushing for the Senate to review the 14th Amendment last year:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129007120
Last edited:
What's far more retarded and frightening are those that believe everything they read in the liberal media about race, and worse, openly advocate it as though they arrived at the conclusions themselves.
The worst is fools who believe there is any such thing as a "liberal media" to speak of in contemporary America, who go around attacking strawmen to defend open racism, and who aren't funny.
I highly doubt you traced both your mothers and fathers lineages back 300 years on BOTH sides of the family. Also, what about before 300 years ago? Extremely hard to believe that 300 years of family history results in "pure blood". And I doubt that's something you're prepared to prove here on a forum.
Scapegoating and jingoism is what the GOP does best!
An example of why I give you shit
Okay, I admit, this one was worth a chuckle. Look, man, I know I give you a lot of shit, but perhaps you might work with me on this one, and maybe I can explain why:
The issue seems to have gotten some play late last year; the Guzzardi article is from January of 2011, but there was a flurry of political cartoons (see Granlund, Margulies, and Bagley for examples°) in August.
While the Fourteenth Amendment question has been swirling in large part thanks to conservative-affiliated Tea Partiers, the miscegenation question is a lot harder to pin down. Is it the Civil War, then? From one bellweather to another? Or are they drawing some sort of baseline picture for a gay marriage question under the Fourteenth?
All things considered, though, a Fourteenth Amendment survey among Mississippi Republicans would be a good, relevant, current question. Your disbelieving tone would be better suited to wondering if they have any ass-tats, or if they think the EPA should keep its hands off meth producers.
So, yeah, that would be one of the reasons why it's so easy to give you shit.
Stil, though, yes, the reason why the question arises is compelling:
Or maybe I'm just psychic. Maybe my clairvoiyance told me the question would come up. Maybe I shouldn't be giving you such shit. Maybe it's such an obscure outlook that only a conservative could come up with the question, and I read you coming. Pulled the vibe right out of the æther.
Oh, right, sorry. At any rate, yeah. The reasons why. The one-liner version of it would go something like: Did you miss it in the news for the last year? And yet you have an opinion about, well, certain related issues?
See, at some point, I wouldn't know where to start. Your outlook on the "army" of Mexicans invading the United States? Other people's perceptions of conservatives and the conservative movement?
And yet there is this disbelieving, comparative tone about your mention of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's most obvious construction is an interrelated (i.e., circular) affirmation of the ridiculousness of the issues.
But the Fourteenth Amendment is not an outlying issue at present. It persists, and will as long as the immigration issue is still so demanding. It would be a much more logical question, I think—unless there is something about the issue in Mississippi itself that makes it specifically important, right now—to be asking.
So that's why I give you shit. What am I missing?
____________________
Notes:
° for examples — via The Cagle Post. Syndicated cartoonist Jeff Danziger took shots at the RGA, RNC, Michael Steele and Haley Barbour directly back in August. He also hit the Tea Party on the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in July, went after Chief Justice John Roberts and Arizona. And so on. The question has been simmering at least since SB 1070 first arose in Arizona; the August cartoons seem to have come in the wake of the controversial immigration law stalling on a restraining order in U.S. District Court.
Works Cited:
Guzzardi, Joe. "California’s Staggering Multi-Billion Dollar Cost to Educate Anchor Baby Citizens". The Cagle Post. January 25, 2011. Blog.Cagle.com. April 15, 2011. http://blog.cagle.com/2011/01/calif...-dollar-cost-to-educate-anchor-baby-citizens/
See Also:
Jeff Danziger. http://danzigercartoons.com/
Madanthonywayne said:
Okay, I admit, this one was worth a chuckle. Look, man, I know I give you a lot of shit, but perhaps you might work with me on this one, and maybe I can explain why:
• As Quad noted, we already covered the fact that the question exists. See also #8, 10, and 12 above for prior considerations on that point.
• Even so, I would suggest the Fourteenth Amendment, for having arisen in the news cycle last year as part of the immigration discussion, has its place in being considered. I have a harder time connecting the dots to miscegenation. But, yes, every time you hear the term "anchor baby", the Fourteenth Amendment is in play:
• Even so, I would suggest the Fourteenth Amendment, for having arisen in the news cycle last year as part of the immigration discussion, has its place in being considered. I have a harder time connecting the dots to miscegenation. But, yes, every time you hear the term "anchor baby", the Fourteenth Amendment is in play:
Led by Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, the organization timed its press conference with the 112th Congress’ swearing in ceremony. The group hoped to send the message to Congress that it needs to seriously address one of illegal immigration’s root causes, namely birthright citizenship.
Among developed western nations, as defined by the World Bank, only Canada and the United States still grant automatic citizenship at birth to anyone born on their soil.
Referring to possible legislation that would end birthright citizenship by requiring that at least one parent be either a citizen or a legal permanent resident, Metcalfe said: “According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography. The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.”
Curiously, California is not among the 40 states represented among the concerned legislators. The state and its largest city, Los Angeles, have suffered fiscally and environmentally more than anywhere in America from the consequences of illegal immigration and legal citizen anchor babies.
(Guzzardi)
Among developed western nations, as defined by the World Bank, only Canada and the United States still grant automatic citizenship at birth to anyone born on their soil.
Referring to possible legislation that would end birthright citizenship by requiring that at least one parent be either a citizen or a legal permanent resident, Metcalfe said: “According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography. The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.”
Curiously, California is not among the 40 states represented among the concerned legislators. The state and its largest city, Los Angeles, have suffered fiscally and environmentally more than anywhere in America from the consequences of illegal immigration and legal citizen anchor babies.
(Guzzardi)
The issue seems to have gotten some play late last year; the Guzzardi article is from January of 2011, but there was a flurry of political cartoons (see Granlund, Margulies, and Bagley for examples°) in August.
While the Fourteenth Amendment question has been swirling in large part thanks to conservative-affiliated Tea Partiers, the miscegenation question is a lot harder to pin down. Is it the Civil War, then? From one bellweather to another? Or are they drawing some sort of baseline picture for a gay marriage question under the Fourteenth?
All things considered, though, a Fourteenth Amendment survey among Mississippi Republicans would be a good, relevant, current question. Your disbelieving tone would be better suited to wondering if they have any ass-tats, or if they think the EPA should keep its hands off meth producers.
So, yeah, that would be one of the reasons why it's so easy to give you shit.
Stil, though, yes, the reason why the question arises is compelling:
... I confess it also strikes me to wonder just why they asked. The question sticks out, to my eye, like a thumb that probably didn't need any more hammering.
What did I miss in Mississippi? What is going on that this was a relevant question?
I mean, it's just there. Why?
And yeah, it's kind of a scary number. So, doubly, then: Why?
What did I miss in Mississippi? What is going on that this was a relevant question?
I mean, it's just there. Why?
And yeah, it's kind of a scary number. So, doubly, then: Why?
Or maybe I'm just psychic. Maybe my clairvoiyance told me the question would come up. Maybe I shouldn't be giving you such shit. Maybe it's such an obscure outlook that only a conservative could come up with the question, and I read you coming. Pulled the vibe right out of the æther.
Oh, right, sorry. At any rate, yeah. The reasons why. The one-liner version of it would go something like: Did you miss it in the news for the last year? And yet you have an opinion about, well, certain related issues?
See, at some point, I wouldn't know where to start. Your outlook on the "army" of Mexicans invading the United States? Other people's perceptions of conservatives and the conservative movement?
And yet there is this disbelieving, comparative tone about your mention of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's most obvious construction is an interrelated (i.e., circular) affirmation of the ridiculousness of the issues.
But the Fourteenth Amendment is not an outlying issue at present. It persists, and will as long as the immigration issue is still so demanding. It would be a much more logical question, I think—unless there is something about the issue in Mississippi itself that makes it specifically important, right now—to be asking.
So that's why I give you shit. What am I missing?
____________________
Notes:
° for examples — via The Cagle Post. Syndicated cartoonist Jeff Danziger took shots at the RGA, RNC, Michael Steele and Haley Barbour directly back in August. He also hit the Tea Party on the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in July, went after Chief Justice John Roberts and Arizona. And so on. The question has been simmering at least since SB 1070 first arose in Arizona; the August cartoons seem to have come in the wake of the controversial immigration law stalling on a restraining order in U.S. District Court.
Works Cited:
Guzzardi, Joe. "California’s Staggering Multi-Billion Dollar Cost to Educate Anchor Baby Citizens". The Cagle Post. January 25, 2011. Blog.Cagle.com. April 15, 2011. http://blog.cagle.com/2011/01/calif...-dollar-cost-to-educate-anchor-baby-citizens/
See Also:
Jeff Danziger. http://danzigercartoons.com/
I'd like to see the poll divided by both politics and self described race. IOW, what do black Republicans and black Democrats think about interracial marriage?
And not just in Mississippi, but across the board.
And then just see the poll results by education
[note: based on the California vote against Prop 8, I wouldn't be surprised if the results were replicated in the interracial marriage votes as well]
And not just in Mississippi, but across the board.
And then just see the poll results by education
[note: based on the California vote against Prop 8, I wouldn't be surprised if the results were replicated in the interracial marriage votes as well]
Here you go:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
Poll isn't broken down by education, but does give results by race and age group. Upshot is that nearly 80% of Americans approve, and this share has been growing rapidly as the older generations (who were born under segregation) die off.
Gay marriage is a very different issue - it's more about the relationship between church and state, than it is race issues. And the same churches that are so vehement about it, have been aggressively recruiting minorities for well over a generation now in order to keep their numbers up. I can think of a certain major church, which I won't name, that is highly committed to the Hispanic population in the US and so tends to come out on the "liberal" side of immigration/race issues and the "conservative" side of gay issues.
Also, the fact that such poll results are driven by the age structure of the population can lead to bad inferences. For example I keep reading statistics that interracial marriage is booming in the South, despite them coming off worse in polls. This is because the attitudes of elderly people (who are much more likely to be racist) don't much affect the marriage behavior of the society - those people got married decades ago. It's the attitudes of people in their 20's and 30's that determine what sorts of marriages we'll actually see. The old racists only show up in the polls, not in the wedding halls.
Another thing that stands out is that the ~50% disapproval rate of interracial marriage amongst Mississippi GOP marks that particular group as way out of line with national attitudes.
Wow, 'open racism', surely the worst transgression of the ten commandments.
Of course, the fact that the term was only invented in the twentieth century doesn't give it quite the same spiritual kudos as the other commandments, but as one of the more recent incarnations it's certainly adhered to with a disturbing level of fanaticism by followers of the holy religion of secular liberalism.
Blacks are also much easier to manipulate and control than whites, Western history is solid proof of that.
Strangely enough, it doesn't mention slavery either, I guess owning another person is just fine with the god and the gop.
I have a hard time following what you're talking about. What does this nonsense mean? You do understand what those terms are defined as, don't you? That doesn't make sense considering none of those terms have anything to do with each other. Racism isn't of the 20th century, it has been alive and well since man's modern evolution. Yes...racism is one of the worst transgressions, but there are no such thing as the secular Liberal ten commandments because most educated people agree that a list consisting of merely 10 transgressions is incomplete and an absurdity. :shrug:
Wow, would you listen to this guy. You couldn't be more racist. Let me guess...you're of the Tea Party...no, no, no wait. You believe that the Civil War wasn't fought over Slavery. Wait, Wait, Wait. You believe that the Civil Rights movement was REALLY about "States Rights". LOL
You don't get it, JuNie, the liberal media has convinced us of the lie that blacks can do just as well as the pale face in modern society, thus causing the degeneration of this nation from it's once great roots, when a man could sit on his fat ass drinking mint juleps only getting up occasionally to whip the darkies into picking his cotton. Those were the days.
It's easily worse than almost all of them, actually - exceptions being murder, theft and false witness.
I'm fairly certain that open racism has been apparent, and identified as such, a long time before the 20th century.
The presumption that opposition to racism is somehow uncritical - some kind of fundamentalist religion derived from... where? - is another cheap strawman.
That you don't have the spine or intellect to present an honest defense of your racism, or at least an honest criticism of mainstream intolerance for such, is contemptible.
You make a pretty decent counterexample to that supposition, actually, with your apparent gullibility and susceptibility to crude political manipulation. Grow a backbone if you want to make these kinds of arguments without tripping over your own feet.
I was looking for something more ... (ahem) ... subtle than that
Well, sure; I could have come up with that.
But then people would have thought I was doing some superficial parody of the conservative-as-racist.
Of course, I also would have used slightly different words. So maybe that has something to do with it, too.
In truth, though, I was looking for something a little less demeaning toward those undecided folks than all that.
EmptySky said:
Well, sure; I could have come up with that.
But then people would have thought I was doing some superficial parody of the conservative-as-racist.
Of course, I also would have used slightly different words. So maybe that has something to do with it, too.
In truth, though, I was looking for something a little less demeaning toward those undecided folks than all that.