• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Politics > Did House Republicans give the election to Obama?

Did House Republicans give the election to Obama?

LatinaLista — Whether the $700 billion infusion of capital into Wall Street, courtesy of Congress, is called a bailout or a rescue, the bottom line is that the failure to pass the package rests solely on the shoulders of House Republicans.
Time will tell if the American public applauds their efforts or crucifies them in the November elections, and the global markets vilify them, but one thing is certain, they did no favor for John McCain.
After defeating the package with a vote of 228 vs. 205 and causing today’s Dow Jones 777 point plummet — the single largest decrease during a day in stock market history, House Republican leaders immediately took to the microphones to blame the defeat on a speech that House Speaker Pelosi delivered before the vote.
Because of her speech, they say, they decided not to vote for the bill.
All along, as justification for being against the bill, Republicans have underscored the phrase that “Americans aren’t dumb.”
Well, we weren’t dumb when the imperfect bill was crafted nor are we dumb enough to think that some grown men who have played political hardball throughout their whole political careers suddenly have gotten their feelings hurt over a speech delivered by a woman they probably don’t even like.
The ones who seem to fit the “dumb” description are the House Republicans who had to lie to cover up the fact that they didn’t have enough votes to pass the bill — even with McCain’s help.


The House Republicans, who have consistently shown to have some of the most extreme conservative members of their party who historically have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to pressure by special interest groups, behaved in a way that shows their flagrant arrogance and ignorance for what is good for the country.
Economists, business owners and financial analysts all agree that the $700 billion has nothing to do with bailing out, according to critics — “Wall Street fat cats” — but in impacting the freeing up of basic credit for us to be able to get car loans, college loans, credit cards or loans of any kind.
Unfortunately, whether due to panic or actual impact of the current economic crisis, there are reports already filtering in from some parts of the country that car dealerships cannot process car loans for some people.
We know that the impact has already hit the global markets from the news that a handful of banks in Europe were partially nationalized over the weekend to protect them from failure.
The crisis is real and the partisan way that both parties approached this crisis contributed to its failure and the general public’s misunderstanding that the Wall Street crisis has nothing to do with electoral politics and everything to do with our financial security.
However, a bill that was sponsored by a Republican administration and defeated by Republican congressional members, even with Sen. McCain taking credit for a victory that never materialized, illustrates that a McCain win would prove to be an unproductive Washington if his “assistance” couldn’t even get some egotistical politicians to see past ideology and look at the bigger picture.
If the crisis wasn’t so dire, a great big thank you card should be sent to House Republicans for showing the nation that they have no intention of working in unison with another Republican administration, but because things are the way they are, we should all be praying that the severity of the situation has been overstated and that who wins the election in November will be the biggest news in what’s left of this year.

Related posts

Comment(28)

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    September 30, 2008 at 7:24 am

    The air-head Pelosi must have also caused 95 Demoncraps to vote against the bail-out also. They didn’t need the Republican votes to make this stupid idea pass and if those 95 nays would have followed the rest of their party, it would have been approved. So, you can stop pointing fingers at Republicans and get it through your skull that the 95 Demoncraps had as much to do with the defeat as anyone else.
    There are other ways to fix our economic problem without making the American tax payer foot the bail-out, but those other fixes would take effect slowly over time and also hobble Obama from taxing the hell out of all of us, IF elected.

  • Avatar
    Texano78704
    September 30, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Whoops… Looks like Marisa hit a nerve with someone. And it looks like they are acknowledging that Obama may win.
    A bad economy (to say the least) under a Republican president does not help a Republican presidential candidate. Why else would Bush be warning that we take immediate action against an “imminent threat” from Wall Street.
    It will not be House Republicans that give the election to Obama, it will be eight years of Bushonomics.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    September 30, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    EYES OF TEXAS :
    The air-head Pelosi must have also caused 95 Demoncraps to vote against the bail-out also. They didn’t need the Republican votes to make this stupid idea pass and if those 95 nays would have followed the rest of their party, it would have been approved. So, you can stop pointing fingers at Republicans and get it through your skull that the 95 Demoncraps had as much to do with the defeat as anyone else.
    I think Pelosi was way too lenient on the stupid RepubliKLANS. She can have one of her aids go out for some cookies and milk for them while the rest of the adults get back to work on the bailout THAT GEORGE BUSH THE REBUBLIKLAN IS CALLING FOR.
    Quit implying it is something the Democrats want.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    September 30, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Democrat Leaders Played to Lose
    Published 9/30/2008 12:50:21 AM
    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered her Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, to essentially not do his job in the runup to the vote on Monday for the negotiated Wall Street bailout plan, according to House Democrat leadership aides.
    “Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn’t want the push for votes to be successful,” says one leadership aide. “All we needed was enough to potentially get us over the finish line, but we wanted the Republicans to be the ones to do it. This was not going to be a Democrat-passed bill if the Speaker had anything to say about it.”
    During the floor vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Democrat Conference chair Rahm Emanuel could be seen monitoring the vote on the floor, and gauging whether or not more Democrat votes were needed. Clyburn had expressed concerns, says the leadership aide, of being asked to press members of the Black and Hispanic caucuses on a bill he was certain those constituencies would not want passed.
    “It worked out, because we didn’t have a dog in this fight. We negotiated. We gave the White House a bill. It was up to the Republicans to get the 100 plus votes they needed and they couldn’t do it,” said another Democrat leadership aide.
    Emanuel, who served as a board member for Freddie Mac, one of the agencies that precipitated the economic crisis the nation now finds itself in, had no misgivings about taking a leadership role in tanking the bill. “He was cheerleading us along, mothering the votes,” says the aide. “We wanted enough to put the pressure on the Republicans and Congressman Emanuel was charged with making it close enough. He did a great job.”
    Pelosi and her aides have made it clear they were not going to “whip” or twist the arms of members who did not want to vote, but they also made no effort to rally any support for a bill they attempted to hijack over the weekend.
    Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a “witch hunt” to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.
    Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically — or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally — treacherous for many.
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13967
    Had the Dems wanted this to pass, I’m sure they could have persuaded 12 of there members to vote yes out of the 95 that voted no. 12 of 36 Democrat Committee members of the House Financial Services Committee should have then voted yes along with ‘ol Barney. Thusly, easily passing this bill. To make it even worse for the Dems, had they wanted this bill passed, they had enough Democrat House members to easily pass this even with all Repub members voting no. There are 235 Dems and 198 Repubs in the house. They should have easily passed this had they wanted it. Nothing more than political ploy to gain the upper hand and attempt to pass it again with what they want in it.
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Clyburn_Not_whipping_yet.html
    “September 28, 2008
    Categories: Miscellany
    Clyburn: Not whipping yet
    Asked about Monday’s vote on the bailout bill, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn tells reporters: “We haven’t started whipping.”
    Asked if he’s going to start whipping, Clyburn says: “The speaker hasn’t told me yet. I do what I’m told.””
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09302008/postopinion/editorials/nancys_disaster_131427.htm
    ” Pelosi – who allegedly controls the chamber – couldn’t even deliver her own members. How humiliating is that?
    Republicans at least had long-standing philosophical objections to a massive expansion of government power over the economy. And, frankly, Pelosi’s boneheaded speech sure didn’t help matters.
    But what of her disloyal Democrats?
    Clearly, they’d bought the demagogic rhetoric of people like Pelosi and Frank, that the $700 billion rescue plan constituted a “bailout of Wall Street.”
    Yet as responsible parties, from President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen on down, have repeatedly made clear, this is a rescue of Main Street from the crippling effects of a potential meltdown of the nation’s credit markets.
    Even as they chanted the mantra of bipartisanship, the Democrats have worked mightily from the outset to spin the crisis for political advantage.
    Yet there’s an old political maxim: Don’t gloat before they vote – and Pelosi did just that.
    Now lawmakers are at each other’s throats and Wall Street is in panic mode.
    Heck of a job, Nancy.”
    I’m not for the bail out, I tend to be more for whats being proposed by Congressman Peter DeFazio.
    http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=438
    “William Isaac, the former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp argues “The banks do not need taxpayers to carry their loans. They need proper accounting and regulatory policies that will give them time to work through their problems.”[5] He has proposed a “net worth certificate” program modeled on what Congress enacted in the 1980s to resolve the savings and loan crisis. The program would require no subsidy and no cash outlay.”

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    September 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
    This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.
    The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
    Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
    This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
    Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
    The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
    Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
    In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This “moral hazard” generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 1, 2008 at 3:16 am

    Yeah, The DUMB republiKLANS thought the other side of the isle was going to pass a bill that Bush and the republiKLAN administration are asking for.
    Then if it fails to do the job it’s suppose to, like some economists predict, the repuks will claim they didnt want it and they didnt vote for it.
    Well they have another thing coming. If they want it passed they have to come up with the votes.
    Pst psst the ignoramuses here don’t understand que cuando ellos iban, nosotros ya veniamos.
    Palosi se los echo a la bolsa and then if there are repercussions for the failure of this bill. The repuks will be tarred and feathered AND lose the election!
    Talk about a rock and a hard place. Pelosi has em right by the, scratch that, right where she wants em.

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 1, 2008 at 8:45 am

    It is one thing to oppose the Republican party but quite another to use deragatory terms to describe the entire party as RepubliKlans. That insinuates that the entire party subscribes to the same ideals as the KKK. That simply isn’t true. I consider myself an Independent and I do disagree with some of the ideologies of both the Republicans and the Democrats, I would never resort to that kind of stereotyping of a whole group.

  • Avatar
    Irma
    October 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    Geez – guys , let the politicians make this thing political, but why dont we the voters
    call for COMMON SENSE?
    The bailout is necessary if it reeks of
    rewarding Wall Street for failure.
    The entire US economy depends on the ability of banks to lend – right now , they
    are not lending.
    Call your Congressmen, and say YES
    to the bailout . Personally I say YES
    but with no PERKS for Wall Street.
    This bailout is not for Republicans or
    Democrats. It is for Americans.
    Pelosi by the way is a dum -dum.
    The Republicans hate her and so she not
    annoy them right now . It is absolutely stupid to try to stick it to someone when you havent won yet.
    Get the do-do heads to vote yes first, then
    whine that they took forever to do it.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 1, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Sandra :
    It is one thing to oppose the Republican party but quite another to use deragatory terms to describe the entire party as RepubliKlans. That insinuates that the entire party subscribes to the same ideals as the KKK. That simply isn’t true.
    E
    The RebubliKLAN politicians support discriminatory views of the KKK. Some RepubliKLAN politicians are even affiliated with the KKK. I already gave you proof of that. The majority of people who support the RepubliKLAN party show that they also support discriminatory views of the KKK every day.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 1, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    On immigration Lou lies Dobbs is a bigot! On the economy he is an expert. I have been watching his program the last three days and like Liquid he mentioned this and had the supporters of this plan on his show. After much thought and research I say. No bailout! Not their plan anyway. Lets try this one that OMG, (i am gonna have to say it) Liquid and Dobbs suggest. Please take time to look at it.
    OPPOSE THE BUSH/PAULSON BAILOUT
    September 27, 2008
    Dear Democratic Colleague:
    Democratic Leadership has done a tremendous job trying to modify the Bush/Paulson bailout into something acceptable, but the fundamental premise of the plan is flawed, thus it should not be supported. Many credible economists, without Wall Street conflicts of interest, have challenged the necessity of the Bush/Paulson bailout and offered many other less expensive options.
    The Bush/Paulson Bailout is Unnecessary:
    Over 200 economists wrote to Congress stating “As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson”[1]. The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the long-term effects. The former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the Reagan Administration wrote, “I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout, if enacted, would work. Would banks really be willing to part with the loans, and would the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?”[2] Paul Krugman wrote, “You don’t want to bet $700 billion on wishful thinking,”[3] commenting on the ability to find an acceptable price. And James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, has asked “Now that all five big investment banks — Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises. Is this bailout still necessary?”[4]
    Alternative Proposals:
    I don’t subscribe to the view that there is only one way save the investment banks and the liquidity of the market. But in deference to the perceived notion that we must act now, alternative proposals are being brushed aside. The danger really lies in a poorly constructed bailout. We can avoid this by seriously debating the alternative proposals.
    William Isaac, the former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp argues “The banks do not need taxpayers to carry their loans. They need proper accounting and regulatory policies that will give them time to work through their problems.”[5] He has proposed a “net worth certificate” program modeled on what Congress enacted in the 1980s to resolve the savings and loan crisis. The program would require no subsidy and no cash outlay.
    James Galbraith has proposed that we eliminate the “pointless” $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance to prevent bank runs. He also proposes a National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital improvements and creating jobs.[6]
    And many economists have argued that directly helping mortgage holders save their houses would be astronomically cheaper and a more effective in resolving this crisis. And helping the average working American restructure their mortgage will increase the value of Wall Street’s depreciated assets. As the New York Time opinioned recently:
    “We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don’t have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers …”[7]
    Let the benefits of any bailout, paid for by taxpayers, rise up to the banks, rather than hope the benefits trickle down. After all, we are Democrats, and we overcame the flawed notion of trickle down theory twenty years ago.
    We Cannot Afford a $700 Billion Bailout:
    Another serious consequence is the $700 billion hole in the budget deficit this bailout will create. If we Democrats have the House, Senate and White House next year, we will be unable to initiate new proposals that we have campaigned on, reverse the failed Bush polices of the past eight years, and chart a new course for our nation. For years, we Democrats have been championing the goals of universal health care, middle class tax relief, investments in education and our nation’s infrastructure, and a real commitment to dealing with climate change and energy independence. Now, after 8 years of gross mismanagement and wrongheaded priorities, we are about to have the Bush administration in one of its last acts, put those goals out of reach for years. The Bush tax cuts blew the surplus created by the last Democratic Administration and the Bush/Paulson bailout will prevent the next democratic administration from truly implementing its change mandate.
    It Must Be Paid For:
    If Democrats continue to back the basic questionable premise of the Bush/Paulson bailout, then we must pay for it. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ¼ of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.
    There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied 7a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance various programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent.
    Our Constituents are Not Fooled:
    If your district is anything like mine, there is an overwhelming opposition to the $700 billion Bush/Paulson bailout. My office has been inundated by thousands of phone calls, emails, and faxes in opposition to the Bush/Paulson bailout. In contrast, I can count on one hand the number constituents who called in favor of the Bush/Paulson bailout.
    We must stand with the working class America we have always fought for. Democrats cannot walk away from our base to join hands with President Bush and Wall Street. And we cannot let the Republicans disavow President Bush and appeal directly to our base of working America.
    Sincerely,
    Peter DeFazio
    Member of Congress
    http://www.defazio.house.gov/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=438

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    October 2, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Once you said “Lets try this one that OMG, (i am gonna have to say it) Liquid and Dobbs suggest.”, does this mean game over?? (sarcastic laughing)

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Ugh, O K ……on…….this…………….issue………..i………………………………….like your plan.
    Game over
    So how do we stop the trillion sock it to the stupid Americans plan from passing?

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 2, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    What discriminatory views do “most” Republican politicians and Republican citizens have?

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 3, 2008 at 1:12 am

    These.
    Nativism in the House:
    A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus
    By the Building Democracy Initiative, Center for New Community
    In the ebb and flow of nativist politics, the House Immigration Reform Caucus has been one of the most powerful and significant forces on Capitol Hill. With 110 congressmen and women as of this report, its members constitute fully one quarter of the House of Representatives.
    Members have introduced some of the most punitive legislation proposed during the last two House sessions. Their past chairman, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), is now running for president and participating in national debates.
    Their current chairman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), is a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Some of its members have helped legitimize vigilante organizations such as the Minutemen. While voters tend to view their representatives as individuals or by party affiliation, the members of the House Caucus have acted as a bloc. Collectively, they have stood athwart the legislative process, preventing the emergence of meaningful and humane policy choices. And they have gone all the while virtually unnoticed.
    The overwhelming majority of Caucus members are from the furthest, hardest edge of the Republican Party’s rightwing; only eight are Democrats. Although they often invoke the supposed interests of native-born wage earners, these representatives generally have stiff anti-labor voting records. Many also oppose a woman’s right to choose, and vote regularly against civil rights and civil liberties concerns.
    The report finds that the Caucus is ideologically-driven, and might more accurately fit an “ultra-nationalist” model typically associated with far-right European parties such as Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, or the Swiss Peoples Party. Although it is often assumed that nativist politics are the result of economic resentment, these congressmen and women are not elected from districts with a common economic or demographic character. They come from suburban, middle class California districts with a significant minority of Hispanic residents. In the South, Mid-South, and West they are elected from districts with a measurable percentage of rural, blue collar white voters, and very small numbers of Hispanics.
    Notwithstanding the Caucus’ political character, its members have received campaign contributions from a surprisingly wide range of sources, including AT&T, the American Medical Association, and Home Depot. All told, 2600 PACs, most of whom are not considered anti-immigrant, have contributed to the HIRC’s campaign coffers. In addition, Caucus members receive funding from nativist sources such as the Minuteman PAC as well as from ultra-conservative sources such as the Eagle Forum and the Club for Growth.
    The election of Rep. Brian Bilbray as the Caucus’ chairman is likely to cement the already symbiotic relationship between fringe anti-immigrant advocacy groups and Caucus members. Rep. Bilbray is himself a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a controversial anti-immigrant organization that holds questionable ties to white nationalist and nativist groups. At the same time, the former HIRC director has gone to work at FAIR as a Government Relations Associate.
    Most recently, Caucus members have begun to actively promote legislation aimed at gutting the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As of the time of this report’s printing, 90 members of the House of Representatives signed on as co-sponsors to legislation aimed at nullifying the Fourteenth Amendment’s “birthright” provision. If passed, this type of legislation would certainly provoke a constitutional crisis.
    http://buildingdemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1094&Itemid=9999
    http://buildingdemocracy.org/index.php?
    option=com_content&task=view&id=1083&Itemid=10009

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    The KKK is a white supremist organization so how are the ideals of the Replublican party including the politicans and registered voters of that party for the most part in tune with those views? Republicans can be of any ethnic or racial group. Why would my black neighbor who is a Republican, be affiliated with the Republican party if they subscribe to the ideals of the KKK as stated by Evelyn? I have never heard that the Republican party stands for an entire white country. My husband is a Republican. Does that make him a KKKer? He doesn’t have a racist bone in his body!
    When one uses these partisan and completely biased opinion articles as proof that isn’t really proof. I could write you an opinion of mine on any subject of your choosing. How does that “prove” anything!? Especially when it comes from obviously biased sources like the DNC (um…the opposition!)!
    I am an Independent and as far as the illegal immigration issue goes, I believe we do have a right to expect our immigration laws to be enforced and it has nothing to do with the KKK or race. If one doesn’t like our present policies then they should contact their local congressmen to seek out those changes but not everyone will agree on what those changes should be. We live in a Democracy and because of that we are free to have our own opinions without being trashed by the opposition for it.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 4, 2008 at 5:14 am

    Why would my black neighbor who is a Republican, be affiliated with the Republican party if they subscribe to the ideals of the KKK as stated by Evelyn?
    E
    For the same reason some Hispanics join the minutemen.
    Self-hatred
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Self-loathing)
    Self-hatred, self-loathing, also sometimes autophobia refers to an extreme dislike of oneself, or being angry at oneself. The term is also used to designate a dislike or hatred of a group to which one belongs. For instance, “ethnic self-hatred” is the extreme dislike of one’s ethnic group. Accusations of self-hatred are often used as an ad hominem attack.
    The term “self-hatred” is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as “persons with low self-esteem”.
    Some people think that self-hatred and shame are important factors in some or many mental disorders, especially disorders that involve a perceived defect of oneself (e.g. body dysmorphic disorder). “Ethnic self-hatred” is considered by some people as being a cultural issue, to which psychological theories have limited relevance. Self-hatred is also a prime feature of avoidant personality disorder.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Especially when it comes from obviously biased sources like the DNC (um…the opposition!)!
    E
    Whatever gave you that Idea?
    Building Democracy has no affiliation with the DNC!
    Building Democracy Is an international organization. They have chapters all over the world!
    From Building Democracy:
    The Building Democracy Initiative defends civil and human rights by countering organized racism, nativism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry. BDI is internationally recognized for its strategic research, community organizing, education and training

  • Avatar
    Michaela
    October 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Sandra :
    It is one thing to oppose the Republican party but quite another to use deragatory terms to describe the entire party as RepubliKlans. That insinuates that the entire party subscribes to the same ideals as the KKK. That simply isn’t true.
    Correct, it isn’t true and anyone who makes those kinds of broad assumptions and attacks is very ignorant.
    Also, switching to Spanish in a forum where many posters do not speak the language is considered to be very low class and shows how ill bred and petty an individual is.
    E
    Pst psst the ignoramuses here don’t understand que cuando ellos iban, nosotros ya veniamos.
    Palosi se los echo a la bolsa

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    Most people who are Republicans agree with their conservative views such as being pro-lifers. If racism were rampant in the Republican party, they would have very few followers, especially minorities. No black person would be a member of that party if they adhered to the ideals of the KKK. To claim that they are Republicans because they are self-hating is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Does that mean that whites who are Democrats are self-haters then?
    As far as the “Building Democracy” website. It’s another open borders, leftist site. I see nothing on that site which is favorable to conservative, traditional American values. Everything is liberal/progressive; there is not ONE WHITE FACE PORTRAYED IN THEIR GRAPHICS! LOL! As well, they refer to illegals as “immigrants.” There is NO WAY that this is an unbiased site to use as a reference to “prove” that Republicans adhere to KKK philosophy.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Michaela :
    Sandra :
    It is one thing to oppose the Republican party but quite another to use deragatory terms to describe the entire party as RepubliKlans. That insinuates that the entire party subscribes to the same ideals as the KKK. That simply isn’t true.
    E
    I have shown proof that they do and some are still affiliated to organizations who like KKK promote hate and discrimination. The only thing different is their name.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Correct, it isn’t true and anyone who makes those kinds of broad assumptions and attacks is very ignorant.
    E
    Ignorant are those who dont want to accept reality and truth.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Also, switching to Spanish in a forum where many posters do not speak the language is considered to be very low class and shows how ill bred and petty an individual is.
    E
    First and foremost this is still a free country. Americans are free to speak any language they wish to.
    Instead of bitching because you choose to be ignorant and not learn another language you should take lessons.
    Also in case you havent noticed the name of this forum is LATINA Lista. Most LATINAS are bi-lingual, they speak English, spanish, and probably understand Italian also.

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 7, 2008 at 8:18 am

    And what if that language we chose to learn was Chinese rather than Spanish? Would that still make us ignorant? It is obvious what language is being pushed in this country.
    Since most Latinos are bi-lingual and there are non-Spanish speakers in this blog also, why not communicate in the common language of English that we ALL understand? It isn’t about freedom of speech but being able to communicate with one another.
    I am sure there are racists in the Democratic party also, so what is the point? Racism is not rampant in EITHER party.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 8, 2008 at 2:35 am

    Sandra :
    And what if that language we chose to learn was Chinese rather than Spanish? Would that still make us ignorant? It is obvious what language is being pushed in this country.
    E
    If you want to learn Chinese go for it. Dont try to force others to do something because you cant.
    You know many Americans speak Spanish so learn, also no one is making you look at anything written in a foreign language. Here where I live Many people speak German.
    I would never think of telling them not to because of my ignorance in not being able to do the same.
    ~~~
    Since most Latinos are bi-lingual and there are non-Spanish speakers in this blog also, why not communicate in the common language of English that we ALL understand? It isn’t about freedom of speech but being able to communicate with one another.
    E
    I have no interest in communicating with you any longer. When I did you ignored me. I already know where you come from and what you are about.
    ~~~
    I am sure there are racists in the Democratic party also, so what is the point? Racism is not rampant in EITHER party.
    You are right, there are, but the Repuks are 99.9% infected.

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 8, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    FYI, I never try to force anyone to do anything or to learn a particular langauge. Yet it appears you are trying to from your remark of “many Americans speak Spanish, SO LEARN IT”. Sounds like you are doing the demanding, not me. Spanish isn’t the only foreign language spoken in this country either. You admit that yourself by your statement of where you live many Americans speak German. Regardless, if one wants to remain monolingual in this country, I certainly wouldn’t call them ignorant for making that choice because English is the language of this country anyway.
    Good! Don’t communicate with me any longer. You are hell bent on pulling the race card and showing no respect for anyone elses opinion anyway.
    Still demonizing the Republicans without proof of your claims that 99.9% are racists? That sure makes a lot of racists in this country. Bet you think that because the majority of Republicans are white, right?

  • Avatar
    Michaela
    October 8, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    E
    Pst psst the ignoramuses here don’t understand que cuando ellos iban, nosotros ya veniamos.
    Palosi se los echo a la bolsa
    Just cut the crap Evelyn. You posted that in Spanish just to insult people who do not agree with your radical views. You probably grew up speaking Spanish so that is lucky for you. There is no reason to insult people who were not lucky enough to be raised speaking Spanish but instead were raised to speak English, which is still the main language of the U.S.

  • Avatar
    Michaela
    October 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    E
    Also in case you havent noticed the name of this forum is LATINA Lista. Most LATINAS are bi-lingual, they speak English, spanish, and probably understand Italian also.
    You are not Latina, who are you trying to kid Evelyn? With blue eyes and reddish hair? Come on, you are only Latina when it is convenient for you.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 8, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    I have never once said I was Latina. I said the blog was!
    I posted in Spanish because it is my right as an American,
    sorryazz!
    I have never been ashamed of who I am or who I associate with, like you.
    I only respect those who deserve it. People who embrace discrimination, dont!

  • Avatar
    Sandra
    October 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Americans supporting our immigration laws and the rightful enforcement of them are not discriminators. They oppose all illegal immigration. Guess that makes every country in the world “discriminators” then? That would mean that no nation on this planet has a right to soveirgn borders or immigration policies.

  • Avatar
    Michaela
    October 11, 2008 at 11:09 am

    Evelyn, Analisa, Xochipilli
    I have never once said I was Latina. I said the blog was!
    You have implied it on more than more occasion. You are white when it is convenient and you are Latina when it is convenient. You are just another white wannabe Hispanic with a guilty conscience.
    E
    I posted in Spanish because it is my right as an American,
    sorryazz!
    You posted in Spanish because you use Spanish as a weapon against Americans! Period!!
    E
    I have never been ashamed of who I am or who I associate with, like you.
    I only respect those who deserve it. People who embrace discrimination, dont!
    I am not ashamed of who I am or who I associate with. I am an American through and through and damn proud of it. You are a Marxist radical anti-American, white hating RACIST to the very core of your hateful soul.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    October 12, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Gee, I wasent even expecting this huge bonus. Thanks! By showing your Ignorance for all the world to see you just keep pushing people who are disgusted by your rhetoric to our side. Once again, you’ve been exposed! (this time without any effort on my part)
    You just made my day!
    BTW, thank you for thinking I am Xochipilli. It is a true honor. His IQ must be about 140– 150 range. Highly intelligent person.
    I am not familiar with Analisa. If you dont like her you are probably jealous of her intelligence as compared to your obvious lack of.

Comments are closed.

28 Comments