PPP: Romney leads CA, CO, CT, NH; Huckabee leads IL, PA

[Mechaman]

Does anyone doubt the GOP of today would be against abolishing slavery if it still existed?  The new costs of ending slavery would stifle businesses!  I'm not kidding.

Yes, I doubt it. 
 
In fact, Republicans would be the first to abolish slavery.  After all, the Republicans are the party of freedom.

The only reason the Democrat Party would abolish slavery is so they could pander to them to obtain a reliable voting block they could then take for granted.

Nobody is going to deny the Republican Party freed slaves. But also nobody is going to forget Republicans selling out Black community, Southern Strategy, abandoning civil rights principles, appealing to the racist in Dixie, "being neglect" etc. etc.

And Lincoln today would be teabagged by some conservative hero.

Never Forget that a Republican Sold Out the Black Vote to Prevent an Irish Catholic From Becoming President.

And Republicans love to claim that history books are so biased against them.

[Mechaman]

So this is really a question that's being debated here?  Would the Republican Party of today still free the slaves if slavery were still in practice?  Why would someone even hypothosize such a question?  Slavery doesn't exist today because of Republicans; Democrats wanted to keep slavery.

But anyway, I would argue that Democrats, in general and mostly (but not totally), are more racist today than Republicans.  They, at every turn, appear to bend over backwards in order to recognize minorities in many cases in favor of recognizing the so called "majority."  However, affirmative action is a racist policy that favors one race over another, regardless of accomplishments, and strictly on the sole basis of ones race.  Giving African Americans reparations is a racist policy that awards one specific race financial advantage over all other races for no other reason than the color of their skin, and based upon a people's suffering from over one hundred years ago when there are no modern day victims, nor perpetrators in which to aquire the funds necessary to award them.  Both these policies are, in general, supported by Democrats.  Modern Republicans, again, in general, do no support these policies.  Actual racism is by and large dead in this country except for the unwillingness of some politicians who outright refuse to allow one race of people to move forward and instead insist on them always looking back.

I actually agree with this post 95% (ie I believe that whether you like it or not both parties are racist).  The way Democrats try to find racism behind every tree these days is annoying.  It is quite ironic because by doing so they only end up looking racists themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaIhf41ctkM&feature=channel

I mean really guys, REALLY.

[Mechaman]

Of course the whole slavery conversation is nonsense and irrelevant as mentioned earlier, but so was this post.

Yeah, I thought we were talking about Mitt Romney..........

[Mechaman]

Folks, I'm not sure how good some of your reading comprehension is so let me reiterate:

This thread is called "PPP: Romney leads CA, CO, CT, NH; Huckabee leads IL, PA".  This forum board is called the "2012 US Presidential Election" meaning that the discussion has to do with the 2012 US Presidential Election.  For the life of me I don't understand what something that ended almost 150 years ago has to do with the 2012 US Presidential Election and those running in it.  Slavery is a non-existent issue in today's world and has no bearing on the 2012 Election, just like gay rights issues were non-existent in the 1860 US Presidential Election.

If you want to have a penis waving contest over which party was more/less racist or would support slavery do it in the Political board or whatever the hell it's called.
Yes I did get involved somewhat in this convo, but that was because I was mocking the rest of you guys (as usual).  But please shut the hell up already.