The American conservative support base

[Col. Crackpot]

I take issue with LBJ being painted as a foreward thinking civil rights leader. One of his most famous quotes was "If we give the niggers the vote, the'll be voting Democrat for the next 50 years." He was an oppourtunist, a racist, a warmonger, he spent money like a drunken fool and one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States.

[Elfdart]

(C) David Duke's support came mostly from suburbs, as KKKers almost always do. Contrary to popular myth, it wasn't the Jed Clampett types who joined the Klan, it was middle-class whites from the suburbs. People like David Duke, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond only like "white trash" slightly more than minorities.

And where did you get this information from? Every source I've seen says that most of the parishes he carried were rural.

A red herring. He got most of his votes from the suburbs.

Also, could you explain why you feel that the most socially progressive states are Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota?

Look up the names Robert LaFollette, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Tom Harkin for starters.

Again, basing your argument entirely upon politicians rather than things like laws passed (and barely repealed even many decades later), the entire Southern Baptist movement, etc.

Who elected them?

Sixteen southern states enforced interracial marriage bans until 1978. Alabama's interracial marriage ban was not removed from its books until 2000, and even then by a mere 60/40 vote. South Carolina's similar ban was not repealed until 1998.

First, those laws were passed by state legislatures, NOT city councils. Those legislatures meet in the State Capitol of each state.

And this explains the 60/40 vote ... how?

There's no bigger polling sample size than a vote, and what do the votes say? Let's see:

In 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but it was nevertheless important as a gauge of public attitudes. The amendment passed, but nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.

Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters voted on removing an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Again, this clause was moot because of a US Supreme Court ruling (although the "state's rights" jack-offs might dispute that), but it was still a good gauge of public opinion. Once again, the amendment passed, but 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.

In November 2000, Alabama voted on a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage that had been in its constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. When one considers that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted overwhelmingly to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state voted to keep the ban. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.

Yeah, it's just a few legislators in an oak-panelled room, right? And make careful note of the dates on those items. I'm not digging up ancient history here.

The states you mentioned have populations of over 4 million each. You're confusing the percentage of those who voted, with percentage of the electorate. Race-baiters and gay-bashers turn out to vote disproportionally in EVERY election, but especially in state races and referendums which tend to be mid-term elections which regular voters often ignore. Even in presidential elections, most of the electorate doesn't vote.

If you're trying to make the case that most voters are lazy, apathetic, or ignorant and won't vote, you're on to something. But to think a minority of a minority that is HIGHLY motivated represents the people as a whole is dumb. To think that rural=Southern=reactionary is equally dumb. The John Birch Society was headquartered in Dallas, Texas (one of the ten largest cities in the US) for decades.

[Darth Wong]

A red herring. He got most of his votes from the suburbs.

Define "suburb". How far away from urban centres are we talking about? Here in Ontario, Milton is often considered a suburb of Toronto, but it's definitely a small town. People go there specifically to avoid living in the city and experiencing city life.

Who elected them?

I notice you cut out the parts of my post asking you to show precisely how you decided they would be classified as "liberal" and whether their election platforms could have been described as such. The example of LBJ is particularly telling.

The states you mentioned have populations of over 4 million each. You're confusing the percentage of those who voted, with percentage of the electorate.

You fucking idiot, didn't you even read what I wrote? A third of the Kentucky electorate, 38% of the South Carolina electorate, and 40% of the Alabama electorate voted for racism!

Race-baiters and gay-bashers turn out to vote disproportionally in EVERY election, but especially in state races and referendums which tend to be mid-term elections which regular voters often ignore. Even in presidential elections, most of the electorate doesn't vote.

If you're trying to make the case that most voters are lazy, apathetic, or ignorant and won't vote, you're on to something. But to think a minority of a minority that is HIGHLY motivated represents the people as a whole is dumb. To think that rural=Southern=reactionary is equally dumb. The John Birch Society was headquartered in Dallas, Texas (one of the ten largest cities in the US) for decades.

When forty percent of the total electorate votes for unrepentant racism, you try to explain it away as racists turning out in disproportionate numbers? How the fuck could 40% of the electorate turn out to vote for something like that unless at least 40% of the electorate is hopelessly racist, you dim-witted southern apologist crackhead?

[Elfdart]

A red herring. He got most of his votes from the suburbs.

Define "suburb". How far away from urban centres are we talking about? Here in Ontario, Milton is often considered a suburb of Toronto, but it's definitely a small town. People go there specifically to avoid living in the city and experiencing city life.

Mostly either sharing a border with the main city or just a short distance. This is often called the "donut" or "whitewall tire" effect. The suburbs are mostly city people leaving the city, not hicks leaving their caves in the wilderness. Hillbillies did NOT support David Duke or Jesse Helms anywhere near as much as suburbanites.

Who elected them?

I notice you cut out the parts of my post asking you to show precisely how you decided they would be classified as "liberal" and whether their election platforms could have been described as such. The example of LBJ is particularly telling.

Sure is, since Johnson is right up there with FDR and Lincoln as being the most important liberal reformers in US history. The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, The War on Poverty (which cut poverty from 21% in 1964 to 11% in 1969), huge amounts of money for public education, ordering federal prosecution for the men who murdered civil rights workers and countless other things. And yes, LBJ ran on his agenda, promising to finish the job FDR started, with his Great Society. I know people find this hard to believe, but there were a number of prominent liberal politicians in Texas: LBJ, Jim Wright, Ralph Yarborough, and Barbara Jordan.

Carter didn't do much in his one term aside from establishing the Department of Education and getting Volcker to strangle inflation. Clinton tried to pass single-payer medicine and other reforms but was stymied by a Republican Congress and his own gutlessness. Only a complete ignoramus would classify Clinton or Carter as anything but conventional liberals, especially when compared to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes.

The states you mentioned have populations of over 4 million each. You're confusing the percentage of those who voted, with percentage of the electorate.

You fucking idiot, didn't you even read what I wrote? A third of the Kentucky electorate, 38% of the South Carolina electorate, and 40% of the Alabama electorate voted for racism!

You are one dumb twat. 250,000 people voted against a symbolic change in the law. Looks pretty bad at first... Until you realize that there are over two and a half MILLION registered voters in Kentucky.

www.kyelect.com/Elecfil/Turnout/primaryturnout/2004.txt

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes) you describe equals less than TEN PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS you fucking moron! This leaves out the fact that a large number of people who are eligible to vote don't register.

Race-baiters and gay-bashers turn out to vote disproportionally in EVERY election, but especially in state races and referendums which tend to be mid-term elections which regular voters often ignore. Even in presidential elections, most of the electorate doesn't vote.

If you're trying to make the case that most voters are lazy, apathetic, or ignorant and won't vote, you're on to something. But to think a minority of a minority that is HIGHLY motivated represents the people as a whole is dumb. To think that rural=Southern=reactionary is equally dumb. The John Birch Society was headquartered in Dallas, Texas (one of the ten largest cities in the US) for decades.

When forty percent of the total electorate

Bullshit in boldface fallacy.

votes for unrepentant racism, you try to explain it away as racists turning out in disproportionate numbers? How the fuck could 40% of the electorate turn out to vote for something like that unless at least 40% of the electorate is hopelessly racist, you dim-witted southern apologist crackhead?

I've already debunked this particular pile of horseshit. Either you can't do math or are just being an ignorant asshole who becomes obnoxious and defensive when his prejudices are challenged. It's ironic that you would accuse rustics and small-towners of a character flaw you've exhibited in this forum.

[sketerpot]

The states you mentioned have populations of over 4 million each. You're confusing the percentage of those who voted, with percentage of the electorate.

You fucking idiot, didn't you even read what I wrote? A third of the Kentucky electorate, 38% of the South Carolina electorate, and 40% of the Alabama electorate voted for racism!

You are one dumb twat. 250,000 people voted against a symbolic change in the law. Looks pretty bad at first... Until you realize that there are over two and a half MILLION registered voters in Kentucky.

www.kyelect.com/Elecfil/Turnout/primaryturnout/2004.txt

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes) you describe equals less than TEN PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS you fucking moron! This leaves out the fact that a large number of people who are eligible to vote don't register.

The statistics you're using are for 2004, but let's just assume that these things can't change very much over 8 years. We're left with Mike's figure of 250,000 voters against dropping the segregation law, which is a pretty decent chunk of the people who actually voted. The voters should act as a fairly representative sample of the people registered to vote, and of the state's total population. If 40% of voters voted against this, then I can only assume that roughly 40% of the state feels the same way, or should get of their asses and get with the democratic process.

And Darth Wong: I think you're using "electorate" the wrong way. The electorate is the body of people who can vote, not necessarily those who do vote.

[Keevan_Colton]

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes) you describe equals less than TEN PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS you fucking moron! This leaves out the fact that a large number of people who are eligible to vote don't register.

Please, oh please...I have to hear this...what other fucking reasons can there be for voting to keep a law against inter-racial mariage on the books other than bigotry and racism?

[Uraniun235]

You are one dumb twat. 250,000 people voted against a symbolic change in the law. Looks pretty bad at first... Until you realize that there are over two and a half MILLION registered voters in Kentucky.

Do the words "voter turnout" mean anything to you? People don't count unless they vote.

Jesus, only 14% of the voters in Kentucky voted? That's a pretty fucking abysmal turnout rate.

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes)

Would you care to put forth a good reason for voting against the proposition?

[Elfdart]

Because such a vote is purely symbolic and a number of people resent the idea of tax money being wasted on onanistic, cathartic symbolism. The 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law to everyone regardless of "race" or ethnic background, takes precedence over ANY state law. Federal civil rights laws also trump all state laws that contradict them.

Before we get all self-righteous and bitchslap the inbred clay-eaters of Kentucky, let's keep in mind the U.S. Constitution still carries the "three-fifths clause" (a black man was considered to count as 60% of a white man for census purposes), and the mandatory return of runaway slaves provision. Like the racist clauses in Kentucky law, these measures were rendered null and void by Amendments 13, 14 and 15. Should the actual words be removed from the document? Or do even stupid people realize that these items are more worthless than Confederate bonds?

Don't get me wrong, if I found myself in a voting booth and had a chance to vote against a racist law, I would. But I'm not going to write off those who won't as "hopelessly racist".

By the way, Kentucky's population increased 9.6% from 1990-2000. So the numbers still hold for the most part.

[Keevan_Colton]

So, they vote TO keep it...that's bullshit elfboy and you know it...not giving a shit about whether it stays or goes is one thing but voting TO keep it is another animal altogether and can be seen as nothing but racist bullshit.

So, come on, where's this magic reason that isnt racist to vote TO keep this shit?

[Elfdart]

You are one dumb twat. 250,000 people voted against a symbolic change in the law. Looks pretty bad at first... Until you realize that there are over two and a half MILLION registered voters in Kentucky.

Do the words "voter turnout" mean anything to you? People don't count unless they vote.

The point I've been making. But there's another part of it: When such a large number of people don't vote (and others won't even register because they can skip jury duty that way), those who DO turn out have a disproportionate influence. Ever notice how in all those polls, most people are pro abortion rights to one degree or another, while anti-abortion types are a clear minority? Yet right-to-lifers have such huge successes in elections. The difference is that while most people are pro-choice, a large number of them are apathetic. The only way to keep pro-lifers away from the voting booth is to lock them up on election day.

Jesus, only 14% of the voters in Kentucky voted? That's a pretty fucking abysmal turnout rate.

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes)

Would you care to put forth a good reason for voting against the proposition?

Just did.

[Keevan_Colton]

Just did.

No, you didnt.

[Elfdart]

So, they vote TO keep it...that's bullshit elfboy and you know it...not giving a shit about whether it stays or goes is one thing but voting TO keep it is another animal altogether and can be seen as nothing but racist bullshit.

So, come on, where's this magic reason that isnt racist to vote TO keep this shit?

They voted against removing it. How many did so because they hate blacks? How many because they resented seeing their tax dollars wasted on political masturbation? How many out of spite aimed at some shyster politician who promoted it -and they would vote against ANYTHING that person wanted passed? How many because they think altering the texts of the laws is not only purely symbolic, but reeks of Orwell's Memory Hole: glossing over something all citizens should know about. How many for a combination of the previous reasons or some I can't think of at the moment? I'll leave it to the resident mind-readers here to figure that one out.

[RedImperator]

When forty percent of the total electorate votes for unrepentant racism, you try to explain it away as racists turning out in disproportionate numbers? How the fuck could 40% of the electorate turn out to vote for something like that unless at least 40% of the electorate is hopelessly racist, you dim-witted southern apologist crackhead?

Forty percent of the electorate would be forty percent of the total number of persons eligible to vote in that state. Considering less than 15% of that number turned out to vote at all, it's impossible to conclude 40% of the electorate is racist based on that vote.

And no, you can't consider the people who did turn out as a representative sample of the entire population, because the voting population is not randomly drawn from the total population, especially voters in non-preisdential elections. Without knowing more detail, I suspect this referendum was held concurrent with something like the school board elections or on a random day during the year, not on the second Tuesday in November and not concurrent with a national or statewide election. Those median age of voters in those elections is always higher than that of the electorate, and are overwhelmingly white, and guess who's most likely to remember the good old days when the niggers knew their place and didn't lie down with white women? As well, there's no way to tell how many genuine racists were drawn out of the woodwork for this. As Elfdart has said, the votes in KY, SC, and AL were cosmetic changes that had no effect whatsoever on the law, and thus weren't likely to get the attention of most voters, but for a racist, casting a "no" vote is a chance to send a symbolic message to the muds and the race traitors (I do not, however, agree that anything more than a tiny minority of the no votes came from racists of one form or another).

[RedImperator]

You fucking idiot, didn't you even read what I wrote? A third of the Kentucky electorate, 38% of the South Carolina electorate, and 40% of the Alabama electorate voted for racism!

You are one dumb twat. 250,000 people voted against a symbolic change in the law. Looks pretty bad at first... Until you realize that there are over two and a half MILLION registered voters in Kentucky.

www.kyelect.com/Elecfil/Turnout/primaryturnout/2004.txt

So, shit-for-brains, that vast horde of bigots (who might possibly have had other reasons to vote against it aside from a seething hatred of blacks -nah, anyone who doesn't vote the way Darth Wong wants them to does so for sinister purposes) you describe equals less than TEN PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS you fucking moron! This leaves out the fact that a large number of people who are eligible to vote don't register.

The statistics you're using are for 2004, but let's just assume that these things can't change very much over 8 years. We're left with Mike's figure of 250,000 voters against dropping the segregation law, which is a pretty decent chunk of the people who actually voted. The voters should act as a fairly representative sample of the people registered to vote, and of the state's total population. If 40% of voters voted against this, then I can only assume that roughly 40% of the state feels the same way, or should get of their asses and get with the democratic process.

Only if the voting population is drawn randomly from the population that's eligible to vote. Thirty years of election statistics from all 50 states disprove that, and the numbers get more skewed when you're not dealing with a Presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial election.

[Elfdart]

When forty percent of the total electorate votes for unrepentant racism, you try to explain it away as racists turning out in disproportionate numbers? How the fuck could 40% of the electorate turn out to vote for something like that unless at least 40% of the electorate is hopelessly racist, you dim-witted southern apologist crackhead?

Forty percent of the electorate would be forty percent of the total number of persons eligible to vote in that state. Considering less than 15% of that number turned out to vote at all, it's impossible to conclude 40% of the electorate is racist based on that vote.

And no, you can't consider the people who did turn out as a representative sample of the entire population, because the voting population is not randomly drawn from the total population, especially voters in non-preisdential elections. Without knowing more detail, I suspect this referendum was held concurrent with something like the school board elections or on a random day during the year, not on the second Tuesday in November and not concurrent with a national or statewide election. Those median age of voters in those elections is always higher than that of the electorate, and are overwhelmingly white, and guess who's most likely to remember the good old days when the niggers knew their place and didn't lie down with white women? As well, there's no way to tell how many genuine racists were drawn out of the woodwork for this. As Elfdart has said, the votes in KY, SC, and AL were cosmetic changes that had no effect whatsoever on the law, and thus weren't likely to get the attention of most voters, but for a racist, casting a "no" vote is a chance to send a symbolic message to the muds and the race traitors (I do not, however, agree that anything more than a tiny minority of the no votes came from racists of one form or another).

I think a large number of those who voted against removing the words were in fact looking for a way to put the "uppity negroes in their place". What percentage? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. In any event, it's a small percentage of those who are eligible to vote. Polls on the issues of race and sex are the least reliable, since people actually have incentive to lie and just tell the pollster what he or she wants to hear. This reminds me of one of JFK's pollsters in West Virginia asking the locals "Will you vote for Kennedy or are you an anti-Catholic bigot?"

[Marksist]

I grew up in a stereotypical (church on every corner, can't buy alcohol on Sundays, regressive lawmaking, etc.) rural southeastern US town. And I have to agree with the OP about rural areas being able to enforce a strict moral code on it's children. But, this happens in these areas not only by parents during the "socialization phase," but also during all years in my public education by fundamentalist Christian teachers.

I don't know what happened to me specifically, but, when I was around 16-17, I was able to sort of "wake up" from my religious, conservative upbringing from my Mother, who as much as I love her, had some great lessons for me to grow up on (like seeing an inter-racial couple on the street, and her shaking her head, sighing, and telling me that "you know, Chris, it says in the bible that: "we should only marry 'our own kind'"). And, the kids I grew up with seemed to have similar beliefs.

The worst things were with my public education, I'll try to be brief, but, I'd like to mention some of the examples of this regressive conservative ideals that went on in my rural southern High School, of about 1,100 students (the high school was shared between two towns).

In ninth grade, my honors English teacher in recommending books to us, suggested C.S. Lewis because "If you ever think you are 'too smart' for Christianity, and begin to question your Christianity, C.S. Lewis has some very good, intelligent things to say about it, and he is very intelligent and has done much research on it."

The Earth Science teacher from ninth grade, also made sure to tell us that he was a Christian, and that he is teaching what the Science books that the department picked out say. But, made sure to emphasize that they were "just theories," and that he was also the youth Pastor at the First Baptist Church, and constantly reminded us that he'd love to see us at youth group meetings (and a lot of the students did go to his meetings, because, well everyone was a Christian, and the teacher was quite charismatic, and was a favorite of many students). He was also the advisor to the FCA club (Fellowship of Christian Athletes, largest club on campus, I believe had about 300-500 members, and most of which weren't athletes, but used the club as an excuse to have a school-sponsered religious club).

My tenth grade American History teacher was an incompetant douche, who, during the school year before the 2000 elections, he had a giant poster that was a "countdown to the end of the Clinton era." He always made sure to let us know he was a Republican, and also occasionally made us listen to Rush Limbaugh (I'm not kidding).

The 11th grade Chemistry teacher, always received anonymous complaints from parents because he was a shitty teacher (shitty teaching being common amongst older teachers who are tenured, and this is a great example of why tenure is fucking stupid for teachers, as it leads to apathy). Well anyways, he was also a part time pastor, and hosted a local AM Christian radio show, and after the school year was over, sent a letter criticizing the parent's complaints, and had many bible quotes and was telling us all that they were bad Christians.

Well, if you are still reading this, this is the big whopper from my public state-funded relgious indoctrination at my public school: At my high school graduation, the senior class president is allowed to give a speech, and she used this oppurtunity to say that "we need prayer BACK in public schools," (with much applause from the crowd) and then her going on about the benefits that prayer, and religion would have on public schools, and THEN she then asked us all to "bow our heads and close our eyes," and then she lead us in a 2 minute prayer. Not only was this illegal, unconstitutional, against my Civil Rights, but, NOBODY did anything about it. The superintendant, the entire school board, the school's administration, all in attendance, and sitting on stage behind the podium, went with it. They prayed, and did not stop this person from doing this.

Well, just wanted to give anyone on here that was doubting that religious indoctrination of children does not happen in rural areas in the US, and that these conditions are not conducive to conservative ideals and strict moral codes. These small towns are very stagnant (stagnant might be understatement, "regressive" is more like it), and just keep perpetuating 19th century "values."

P.S. To admiral danielsben... I also had a habit of observing teachers to see what their biases were, and on some occasions outright asking what their political affiliation was (when I was in the upper grade levels, after I had started to realize what was happening to me, and people around me) and the liberal school teacher at my school was rare.

P.S.S Also I (or any one else) for that matter, did anything about this situation, and now, over a year after that graduation ceremony, it is one of the few things in my life that I regret: not doing anything about all these establishment clause violations. It's just in 11, 12th grade I was a "closet" atheist, for fear of my Mother, and just about everyone I know ostracizing me for this. And after I finish college, I will never live in a small town again. In high school marching band, and drum corps I traveled to all sorts of po-dunk shit towns, and they are all just mirrors of each other as far I can see in the populace.

[sketerpot]

My tenth grade American History teacher was an incompetant douche, who, during the school year before the 2000 elections, he had a giant poster that was a "countdown to the end of the Clinton era." He always made sure to let us know he was a Republican, and also occasionally made us listen to Rush Limbaugh (I'm not kidding).

My situation isn't as bad as that. Thanks for making me feel better. [brag]My American History/Government teacher is the chairman of the county Democratic Party, which he mainly uses as a source of jokes at his expense.[/brag]

Well, if you are still reading this, this is the big whopper from my public state-funded relgious indoctrination at my public school: At my high school graduation, the senior class president is allowed to give a speech, and she used this oppurtunity to say that "we need prayer BACK in public schools," (with much applause from the crowd) and then her going on about the benefits that prayer, and religion would have on public schools, and THEN she then asked us all to "bow our heads and close our eyes," and then she lead us in a 2 minute prayer. Not only was this illegal, unconstitutional, against my Civil Rights, but, NOBODY did anything about it. The superintendant, the entire school board, the school's administration, all in attendance, and sitting on stage behind the podium, went with it. They prayed, and did not stop this person from doing this.

That sucks, but here the school administration decrees that they will have a prayer at graduation and that a student will lead it. "We've found a loophole," I can imagine them chortling in glee, "and now we can impose---ahem, 'express'---our religion!"

That's why I don't trust the administration to do anything for me: most of the time they do something to me. And then they wonder why students don't trust them, and tell people in assemblies that they're "here to help".

P.S.S Also I (or any one else) for that matter, did anything about this situation, and now, over a year after that graduation ceremony, it is one of the few things in my life that I regret: not doing anything about all these establishment clause violations. It's just in 11, 12th grade I was a "closet" atheist, for fear of my Mother, and just about everyone I know ostracizing me for this.

I'm between 11th and 12th grades, and I'm in the same situation. If anyone else is, I'd just like to remind you that the ACLU is perfectly happy to phone an administrator and politely point out the laws. They do it all the time.

And after I finish college, I will never live in a small town again. In high school marching band, and drum corps I traveled to all sorts of po-dunk shit towns, and they are all just mirrors of each other as far I can see in the populace.

There was an assembly here once where all the high school students were asked if they would be staying here or coming back after college. Only two or three raised their hands, and I was not among them. It seems that your decision is a popular one.

[admiral_danielsben]

P.S. To admiral danielsben... I also had a habit of observing teachers to see what their biases were, and on some occasions outright asking what their political affiliation was (when I was in the upper grade levels, after I had started to realize what was happening to me, and people around me) and the liberal school teacher at my school was rare.

Big difference: you grew up in a small town. I grew up in suburbs, rather left-leaning ones. Specifically, Montgomery County, Maryland. The kids in my middle school during the 2000 elections "voted" Gore over Bush 66%-29% in a mock election; I "voted" for Harry Browne (the libertarian). The teachers were generally to the left of the students. I was/still am the 'conservative' in my social studies classes.

However, you grew up in what even i view as a somewhat reactionary family and area; I am not a social conservative on most issues (save abortion, which i am against). I am primarily a fiscal conservative and secondarily a neocon.

[Marksist]

Danielsben: Sorry about that, I misread your post earlier.

I don't know why but from your post, I assumed you meant you grew up in a small rural area also, but happened to be liberal. I went back and re-read it, and see now what you meant. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

I'm between 11th and 12th grades, and I'm in the same situation. If anyone else is, I'd just like to remind you that the ACLU is perfectly happy to phone an administrator and politely point out the laws. They do it all the time.

Thanks for pointing that out Sketerpot, I didn't even think of doing that in High School, as my AP Am. Gov't teacher my Senior year made the ACLU seem like a bunch of raving lunatics (you can only guess what biases this teacher had). But, to anyone that reads this, if you are a student and are dealing with any of the stuff I had to deal with; give the ACLU a call.

[MKSheppard]

Big difference: you grew up in a small town. I grew up in suburbs, rather left-leaning ones. Specifically, Montgomery County, Maryland.

Yay, a fellow marylander and Montgomery Countyite!

Hey, did you know that MoCo in 1860 voted overwhelmingly
against Abraham Lincoln?

[admiral_danielsben]

Big difference: you grew up in a small town. I grew up in suburbs, rather left-leaning ones. Specifically, Montgomery County, Maryland.

Yay, a fellow marylander and Montgomery Countyite!

Hey, did you know that MoCo in 1860 voted overwhelmingly
against Abraham Lincoln?

Yeah, so? MC has had extremely little sense in voting. I doubt it's ever cone Republican in a statewide or national race, unless Spiro Agnew pulled a miracle or something when he ran for Governor. It was during the Civil Rights Movement that Maryland switched from Ol' Southern state to Northeastern state (at least, Montgomery, Prince George's, and the City of Baltimore did), thus staying Democrat.

[Darth Wong]

I think a large number of those who voted against removing the words were in fact looking for a way to put the "uppity negroes in their place". What percentage? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. In any event, it's a small percentage of those who are eligible to vote.

So when a quarter of a million people in a state of just 4 million people vote for racism and are clearly raving racists, you dismiss this because it's not half a million. Tell me, if these states were not more racist than other states, why wouldn't there be similar problems in other states? All the same excuses would apply, so why don't we see the same problems elsewhere? Why did Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly single out the Southern states for their horribly racist attitudes in his famous "I have a Dream" speech? I guess he was just as uninformed about the civil-rights era as me, right?

This is nothing more than an Appeal to Ignorance on your part: you challenge me to prove it and then you make up excuses to dismiss every piece of evidence brought forth, even though you have no evidence of your own apart from bizarre non sequiturs such as "LBJ a civil-rights pioneer because he buckled to the people he called 'niggers', so his whole home state is not racist". Polls on gay marriage? You dismiss those too, but again, you offer no real explanation for the sharp distinction between results in rural areas and results in urban areas.

For someone who initially tried to take others to task for ignoring the evidence, you've sure done a good job of making excuses to dismiss all the evidence brought forth.

[Uraniun235]

I'm rather surprised by the negative backlash this thread recieved. Certainly very few people here would argue that the ludicrous number of people who unequivocally deny evolution, push religion, and entertain intensely nationalistic attitudes in the United States is good for this nation or even the world in general, yet a lot of people seem to take offense at the notion that the problem comes largely out of rural areas, where people can more tightly control their children's exposure to the outside world.

Where do you ('you' in a general sense, not 'you, person who just posted before me') think this problem comes from? The schools? The same system the local populace controls? Besides, a teacher can't do much at all in the face of parents determined to raise their children to be irrational people.

Let me relate a story from my high school days. At my high school there was a math teacher (Rusaw) who was a youth pastor in his off-hours, as well as led the before-school prayer group at the high school. He was known for having debated the physics teacher on evolution (and getting his ass kicked so hard and so many times that the physics teacher simply refused to even discuss the subject any more; but Rusaw of course merely said they "had their differences" on the subject), and for having in his class a "logic unit" which was really an excuse for him to have a "creationism vs. evolution debate".

He was also known for his beliefs, and as such thanks to that and his being the "faculty advisor" of the prayer club the churchie kids were drawn to him like a fucking magnet. A big chunk of his classes were comprised of the very religious people in the school; people who seriously believed the Earth was only a few thousand years old. One person tried to argue that the Great Flood was a global flood that among other things carved out the Grand Canyon; when I brought up the physical impossibilities of that, she simply waved it away with "Well I believe that God can perform miracles like that." Hey, way to present objective evidence, dipshit! She of course was not marked down for it.

But in the environment of his classroom, their beliefs were reinforced, not challenged. They didn't have to prove themselves; there, they could simply find support from everyone else, and other people were the outsiders.

This is part of the problem; in controlled environments, it's a lot easier to cast "undesirable" concepts as simply evil and to reinforce such thinking by reassuring yourself that everyone around you thinks the same as you do and therefore you're right and the outsider is wrong. And on the other hand, by thinking differently from the people around you, from nearly the entire cast of characters that makes up your life, you're risking rejection and isolation from possibly everyone you know. And if you're an adolescent with very controlling parents, it's possible that everyone you know in your life is in some way "approved" by them to be part of your life. Conformity is life.

...and in some very isolated areas, dissent could damn near be close to death. (Or, in the case of some particularly intolerant people on homosexuality, it is death.)

[Elfdart]

I think a large number of those who voted against removing the words were in fact looking for a way to put the "uppity negroes in their place". What percentage? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. In any event, it's a small percentage of those who are eligible to vote.

So when a quarter of a million people in a state of just 4 million people vote for racism and are clearly raving racists

Clearly raving racists? Can you prove that? It takes more than a vote on a meaningless referendum to prove that all -or even most- of the 250,000 voters were racists. Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act, but he was FAR from a bigot.

, you dismiss this because it's not half a million.

I don't dismiss a quarter million voters. I dismiss you for your bullshit claim that 250,000 is 30% of 2,500,000.

Tell me, if these states were not more racist than other states

A claim I never made.

, why wouldn't there be similar problems in other states? All the same excuses would apply, so why don't we see the same problems elsewhere? Why did Martin Luther King Jr. explicitly single out the Southern states for their horribly racist attitudes in his famous "I have a Dream" speech? I guess he was just as uninformed about the civil-rights era as me, right?

According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher education:

No More White Racism in America?

This past November, nearly a third of all voters in the ordinarily liberal state of Oregon voted to keep racist language in the state constitution.

In 1995 Dinesh D'Souza proclaimed in his book The End of Racism that racial prejudice on the part of whites should no longer be a major concern of African Americans. It was D'Souza's thesis that blacks were not being harmed by the racial attitudes of whites but rather by a "cultural pathology" that they were inflicting upon themselves.

Most people think of racism in terms of taxicab passbys and "driving while black" arrests. But racially motivated public decisions are deeply embedded in voting practices in many parts of the country. In each of the four national elections since the publication of the D'Souza book whites have provided evidence of the continuing persistence of racist views.

First, in 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but the ban on racially integrated education remained in the official Kentucky state constitution for another 42 years. In 1996 Kentucky voters passed an amendment to remove the provision. However, nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.

Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters were presented with the opportunity to remove an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Of course, this clause also was moot because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that laws forbidding interracial marriages were unconstitutional. However, the provision remained part of the state constitution.

As expected, the amendment to the South Carolina constitution passed easily. But the remarkable aspect of the vote was the fact that in 1998 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.

In November 2000, voters in Alabama were presented with a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage which had been part of that state's constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. In view of the fact that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted almost unanimously to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state wished to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the Alabama constitution. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.

Finally, in 2002 voters in the traditionally liberal state of Oregon were offered the opportunity to remove racist language from the 1857 state constitution. The original language of the state constitution called for the apportionment of state Supreme and Circuit Court judgeships by the number of people in the "white population." Also, a provision of the 1857 state constitution called for a vote on whether slavery would be permitted in the new state and whether "free Negroes" and "mulattos" would be allowed to own property in the state. Oregon voters at that time voted "No" on both questions. To this day the language has remained part of the state's constitution.

Measure 14, which was put before the voters, called for the removal of the racist language. The measure passed. But 29 percent of all Oregon voters wanted to keep the racist language in the state constitution. More than 339,000 Oregonians voted "No" on the measure. [boldface from Elfdart]

Aside from their confusion of the percentage for those who voted with the percentage of the total electorate, this article was quite instructive. Oregon, which in the other side of the country from Dixie, must also be overrun by crypto-Klansmen according to your logic.

I also couldn't help but notice that the wording from the article (highlighted in yellow) at JBHE is, aside from a nip here and a tuck there, fucking INDENTICAL to to what appeared in your post from July 2, 2004 -12:45 AM:

In 1996, an initiative was proposed to voters in Kentucky to repeal a provision in the state's constitution that stipulated that black and white children could not be educated in the same classrooms. Of course, this provision was nullified by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court in the Brown decision, but it was nevertheless important as a gauge of public attitudes. The amendment passed, but nearly 250,000 Kentuckians, about a third of the total Kentucky electorate, voted to keep the provision as part of the official state constitution.

Two years later, in 1998, South Carolina voters voted on removing an 1895 provision from the state constitution that banned marriages between blacks and whites. Again, this clause was moot because of a US Supreme Court ruling (although the "state's rights" jack-offs might dispute that), but it was still a good gauge of public opinion. Once again, the amendment passed, but 326,000 South Carolinians, 38 percent of the total South Carolina electorate, voted to retain the provision as part of the state constitution. In fact, a majority of voters in six counties in South Carolina voted to keep the ban on interracial marriage as part of the fundamental charter of the state.

In November 2000, Alabama voted on a referendum to repeal a ban on interracial marriage that had been in its constitution since 1901. More than 525,000 voters in Alabama — some 40 percent of the total electorate — voted to keep this provision as part of the fundamental law of the state. When one considers that blacks make up more than 20 percent of the voting age population in the state, and in all likelihood voted overwhelmingly to remove the ban, it is probable that a majority of the white voters in the state voted to keep the ban. In fact, the referendum to remove the ban was voted down by a majority of voters in 24 of Alabama's 67 counties.

So not only did you plagiarize from this article:

www.jbhe.com/features/37_white_racism.html

But you made damn sure to limit your plagiarism to those paragraphs that, out of context, made your point -while leaving out the part about Oregon, which didn't. By the way, ":lol:" was the response I got when I phoned JBHE this morning and showed them these posts.

For someone who initially tried to take others to task for ignoring the evidence, you've sure done a good job of making excuses to dismiss all the evidence brought forth.

What evidence? Prejudice, false assumptions, faulty math -all compounded with plagiarism and other intellectual dishonesty- is all I've seen here from you.

[Aeolus]

I'm rather surprised by the negative backlash this thread recieved. Certainly very few people here would argue that the ludicrous number of people who unequivocally deny evolution, push religion, and entertain intensely nationalistic attitudes in the United States is good for this nation or even the world in general, yet a lot of people seem to take offense at the notion that the problem comes largely out of rural areas, where people can more tightly control their children's exposure to the outside world.

Where do you ('you' in a general sense, not 'you, person who just posted before me') think this problem comes from? The schools? The same system the local populace controls? Besides, a teacher can't do much at all in the face of parents determined to raise their children to be irrational people.

Let me relate a story from my high school days. At my high school there was a math teacher (Rusaw) who was a youth pastor in his off-hours, as well as led the before-school prayer group at the high school. He was known for having debated the physics teacher on evolution (and getting his ass kicked so hard and so many times that the physics teacher simply refused to even discuss the subject any more; but Rusaw of course merely said they "had their differences" on the subject), and for having in his class a "logic unit" which was really an excuse for him to have a "creationism vs. evolution debate".

He was also known for his beliefs, and as such thanks to that and his being the "faculty advisor" of the prayer club the churchie kids were drawn to him like a fucking magnet. A big chunk of his classes were comprised of the very religious people in the school; people who seriously believed the Earth was only a few thousand years old. One person tried to argue that the Great Flood was a global flood that among other things carved out the Grand Canyon; when I brought up the physical impossibilities of that, she simply waved it away with "Well I believe that God can perform miracles like that." Hey, way to present objective evidence, dipshit! She of course was not marked down for it.

But in the environment of his classroom, their beliefs were reinforced, not challenged. They didn't have to prove themselves; there, they could simply find support from everyone else, and other people were the outsiders.

This is part of the problem; in controlled environments, it's a lot easier to cast "undesirable" concepts as simply evil and to reinforce such thinking by reassuring yourself that everyone around you thinks the same as you do and therefore you're right and the outsider is wrong. And on the other hand, by thinking differently from the people around you, from nearly the entire cast of characters that makes up your life, you're risking rejection and isolation from possibly everyone you know. And if you're an adolescent with very controlling parents, it's possible that everyone you know in your life is in some way "approved" by them to be part of your life. Conformity is life.

...and in some very isolated areas, dissent could damn near be close to death. (Or, in the case of some particularly intolerant people on homosexuality, it is death.)

The anger is at the idea that peoples beliefs are a "problem" the state needs to address.